Wikipedia:XfD today

Shortcuts

This page transcludes all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.

Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

Candidates for speedy deletion

Acharya Satish Awasthi

Siege of Baghdad (1625-1626)

Bahmani–Vijayanagar War (1417–1419)

Battle of Kunjpura

Battle of Tiruvadi

China and the opioid epidemic in the United States

Draft:Cork Junior B Inter-Divisional Football Championship

Gupta–Saka Wars

Hariwood

Krishnadevaraya's Bahamani Expedition

Na Se Contaethe

User:KGRAMR/PhaseZero

User:ΛΣ/first band

User:ΛΣ/Solya

Articles[edit]

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< April 27	April 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Miss Washington USA[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is not ready for main space and should be draftified, at least. The references that exist do not add anything beyond individuals who won pageants in two recent years out of a claimed more than 50 years of events. There is not one reference for the pageant organization itself even to back up the claimed ownership or year it was formed. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NORG due to a lack of sourcing about the pageant itself. Let'srun (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sihle Magongoma[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African cricketer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers Looks to fail WP:GNG. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Cahalane[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I really found were transactional announcements (2015, 2017). JTtheOG (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided: Can't imagine a player with 93 appearances for one club and had apparently played for others has so little written about him. Should be expanded, but currently not sufficient coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Unable to find anything other than routine coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of dog breeds from India[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's already a category for this and no other specific dog breed lists exist. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list has more information than a category so is thus more useful. There is no reason they can't both exist, in according to the rules. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Perfect valid information and navigational list. Adding in images and additional information, like List of Italian dog breeds has, would make it even more useful for these two purposes. Dream Focus 00:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case WP:NLIST applies, which I believe is failed. Reliable sources discuss dog breeds within India (which includes many foreign breeds), but not specifically breeds of Indian origin. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the second paragraph in that. There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists ... Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Dream Focus 01:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{Indian dogs}}: I'm not a fan of this list because it seems to be something of an duplicate and unintentional content fork from the Indian dogs template and the List of Dog Breeds. I massively overhauled this list awhile back because it had deviated from the template quite significantly (and it was unsourced). I anticipate it will continue to be poorly maintained as it's not the usual place we list dogs by country in WP:Dogs - again thats usually the navigational templates. There is precedence for articles (not lists) on broad categories of dogs associated with a country, such as China's tugou or Russia's Laika (dog type), these dogs have extensive history and development that ties them together; however, Indian dog breeds dont share such a set of characteristics. Apologies for the rambling. Cheers! Annwfwn (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mastrogiorgio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor whose career has been a string of tiny roles and insignificant voice acting gigs. Fails WP:BIO. Capt. Milokan (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, Video games, Comics and animation, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Starring roles in My Italy Story, Rocky the Musical, and Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories. The reviews for My Italy Story seem to be only ones that mention his performance (Hartford Courant review the only one that isn't a permanent dead link: [1]). --Mika1h (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Fusitua[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crackhead Barney[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of biography has low encyclopedic value and fails general notability guidelines with only a handful of sources and a YouTube channel. A person who harasses and stalks celebrities like Alec Baldwin in so-called "ambush interviews" is not a reputable news reporter. AfdBarney (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhardt Erwee[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Pretty much all trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Fick[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced rugby BLP; subject made one pro appearance. Having a hard time finding the necessary sourcing to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Myong-chol[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana University Informatics & Communications Technology Complex[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most substantial source cited is a student newspaper article from time of construction. Further searches suggest that neither original construction or recent developments appear to have generated significant independent coverage. All coverage is from university or contractor press releases, or passing mentions as location of various departments. No indication building meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and Indiana. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Squires[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find much of anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Best thing that came up was three sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choe Mi-gyong[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up were trivial mentions (1, 2, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milad (entrepreneur)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, possibly a vanity article. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akade[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No clear notability. Creation tends to indicate an undeclared conflict of interest. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebra Yen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; ineligible for PROD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Taiwan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased third Minecraft album[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposing a draftify or merge to C418 as an alternative to deletion. Unfortunately I think this album is non-notable for several reasons: (1) The album does not 'exist' yet per se; as it has not been announced, and most of the evidence relating to potential release or more information are primary interview sources that are several years old; (2) the album has not reached a point where sourcing provides any concrete details about its content at all, making it fall short of notability guidelines for unreleased material and too soon to justify an article; (3) as such, the article makes inaccurate or speculative assessments about the album, such as assuming the runtime will be >199:40 from a 2017 tweet or implying that the release will contain the songs packaged for the Update Aquatic version; and (4) the article's content is currently more a coalescence of things that Rosenfeld has said or done after the sale of Minecraft to Microsoft, which may be better covered as a section under C418. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Video games. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Park Scholarships[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not independently notable (and notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization). ElKevbo (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodnight Scholars Program[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not independently notable (and notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization). ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Technology, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khymani James[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violation of WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLP1E User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Think it should probably be merged with 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation, and remove some of the info about his highschool bio? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is notable for multiple events, some while in high school and others while in college. Both got headlines. This is not a case of BLP1E. I am also not sure how he is a victim. He has made statements and taken actions of his own will that have made him notable. He is not in the news because of the actions of others. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Chaplain to the King[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is fundamentally flawed. The position of Honorary Chaplain to the King is a military appointment, for serving regular and reserve chaplains in the British and some Commonwealth armed forces. However much of the text refers to Chaplains to the King, who are members of the Ecclesiastical Household of the Royal Household, and are civilians, usually senior parish priests. I do not believe that the article can be repaired. As an alternative to deletion it would have to be wholly rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncox001 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC); listed on the log at 21:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Christianity, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Son of Himalaya[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NFILM. Theroadislong (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anil Prakash Joshi#Filmography: , where it's mentioned, as ATD. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Məlikzadə[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A one sentence page that fails WP:GNG. It has been like that for around 10 years now. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Asia, and Azerbaijan. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On the map, it shows up north of Gülüzənbinə and has enough houses that I don't doubt (contrary to about a hundred AFDs on US locations) that it's populated. However, they are very close to eachother and a case might be made that these are constituent parts of a larger village. Geschichte (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for a village, there is no requirement for much more info that what is available in the article. It's a village, it has coords, it is located in a municipality. Here there is mention (WP:RS?) on Gypsy population being resettled in Melikzade in by Shah Abbas the Great as a measure to suppress local rebellions, seems it is was of the main sites of Gypsy population in Azerbaijan. [2] confirms same point, and affirms that they are Persian speakers. --Soman (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fayse Goh[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the article appears to be very promotional. I also searched up the name, and it appears to plagarize his youtube channel's description. Gaismagorm (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Malaysia. Gaismagorm (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the disambiguation does not explain how the term at all relates to the two entries. I could see canada, but a church cantoris? it just doesn't seem right. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CD Country[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Radio. Let'srun (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of IMAX venues[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a case of WP:NOTDIR. The most recent AfD closed as no consensus but several of the keep arguments were effectively arguing WP:USEFUL, which is not an appropriate deletion argument. Let'srun (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Silvestri[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable - no significant coverage of the subject and possibly promotional Pprsmv (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, United States of America, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Baker-Hytch[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics): (1) research does not have a significant impact (1 book recently published, no commentary on his work, less than 100 citations. (2) zero awards. (3) Not a member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. (4) Nothing to indicate that anyone is discussing this person's work, let alone "academic work has made a significant impact"! (5) Not a distinguished professor, a postdoc and a tutor. (6) did not hold a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post. (7) mentioned once BBC Dorset for playing in a band, which he does not have a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. (8) Not the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. Checking the basic criteria, the article is compiled from his work (WP:Primary + the section about "Ideas" is pure original research, e.g., "Baker-Hytch contends that mutual epistemic dependence is an essential mechanism for human acquisition of knowledge with no citation. A few sentences later, there is a citation to a book that discusses the topic but not the person or the person's ideas. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article satisfies the criteria for notability (academics). (1) His research has the significant impact. He has published numerous papers in various academic journals. In addition, he has the high rate of citations (more than 100 considering the rate of citations of all his papers). You may use Google Scholar carefully. (2) He received the British national award from the Research Councils UK. (3) He is a member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly institute. He is a fellow of the University of Oxford and member of the relevent associations at Oxford. (4) Many academic papers discuss his ideas. For example, DEBUNKING ARGUMENTS GAIN LITTLE FROM COGNITIVE SCIENCE OF RELIGION, Divine hiddenness, the demographics of theism, and mutual epistemic dependence: a response to Max Baker-Hytch etc. Again, you may use Google Scholar carefully. If you find it difficult to have the access to academic journals, the easiest way is to contact your university library if any. (5) He is a distinguished research fellow at the University of Notre Dame and University of Oxford. (6) He is a senior fellow at the University of Oxford. (7) He has a substantial impact outside academia such as popular debates. (8) He reviewed and edited numerous academic journals such as Erkenntnis, Philosophical Papers, Religious Studies etc. Therefore, it is indispensable to keep this article. --Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you really missing the point here and provided more reasons for the article to be deleted as participating in debates, having citations around few hundreds, and being a postdoctoral research fellowships or a college tutor (that is his own words) is not a reason for article to be included here. see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for details about what the word "substantial" entail FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read carefully the criteria, you will find that academics meeting any one of the criteria, are notable. There is no need to meet all criteria. One is enough. Max Baker-Hytch already satisfies the first criterion and others. Therefore, he meets the notability requirements.

By the way, welcome to debate at Oxford. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section regarding mutual epistemic dependence is NOT a pure original research. If you read it carefully, you will find that J. L. Schellenberg's discussion on Max Baker-Hytch's mutual epistemic dependence Divine hiddenness: Part 2 (recent enlargements of the discussion) is cited. If you find yourself unable to get the access to academic journals, the easiest way is to contact your university library if any. Also, Max Baker-Hytch's mutual epistemic dependence is discussed by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. --Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Christianity, England, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Double-digit citation counts on Google Scholar fall below the bar for WP:PROF#C1. Being a Fellow at Oxford is just a teaching job, not the kind of honorary level of membership in a selective society (such as FRS) that would pass #C3. Reviewing for journals and occasionally getting cited in journals are things all academics do; our standards for notability are significantly above that level. Nothing else in the article even resembles a claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Max Baker-Hytch is not only a fellow but a reputable academic and researcher at Oxford. His work is characterised by its depth and relevance, evidenced by its considerable, significant impact within the academic sphere. In addition, his research consistently maintains a high rate of citations, further solidifying the claim to keep his article. As a result, he obviously meets WP:PROF#C1 and the established criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out your comment as you are only allowed a single keep or delete opinion in a deletion discussion. This is not a vote; more keeps and more repetition of the same claims will not help. It is a discussion to clarify how Wikipedia's notability guidelines apply to this case and build concensus on whether Baker-Hytch does or does not meet those guidelines. You might also find WP:BLUDGEON to be helpful advice. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking out my comment is unacceptable and outrageous as it goes against a fair discussion on Wikipedia and the First Amendment.

If I mistakenly make more than one KEEP, please delete the redundant KEEP but leave my comment intact. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Baker-Hytch has written numerous academic papers, resulting in a total citation rate (of all papers) higher than 100. This impressive achievement reflects the impact and significance of his contributions to the academic sphere. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This promotional glurge reads like something an AI would write. [Comment referred to Special:Diff/1221275435 before it was edited to change what I replied to.] —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a human and not an AI, but I speak in a calm, formal manner. I am elaborating on my argument. Could you stop irrelevant distractions or personal attacks? We should focus on our clarification instead. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100 citations isn't a high bar for a real academic in most fields. I have 88 at the moment, and I've never held a non-clinical faculty appointment. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you are not from Oxford. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you read carefully, you will find that I said his TOTAL citation rate is higher than 100, not only 100 but significantly higher than that. The total citation rate and discussions on all his papers are obviously above one thousand. You may use Google Scholar to search all his papers and relevance discussions. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Iacopelli[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Michigan. Joeykai (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: American Hockey League player - you don't get much higher than that within ice hockey. Probably the third best league in the world. The nomination is not the third best in the world, though, it consists of a single word (plus one capital-letter abbreviation) which doesn't cast any light on the state of the article or its sourcing. Geschichte (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medium-power talker[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another WP:DICTDEF from Wikipedia:Federal Standard 1037C terms with zero usage outside of dictionaries. I assume a "talker" refers to a loudspeaker or similar device, but I can't find much info about it. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Melo e Castro[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Orphan article with no evidence of notability. Lecturer does not meet WP:PROF and an h-Index of 4 means the research output had little impact. Tried to find book reviews to see if the subject could meet WP:NAUTHOR but I was only able to find this one and I don't think it's enough to qualify for notability. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV as well. Contributor892z (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors. Contributor892z (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Tash Garrison[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any sources besides the one 2003 report. Given it seems to lack official government recognition, WP:GNG applies over WP:NPLACE and I can find basically nothing about this place. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. There was a refugee camp there and I believe it was notable per 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and other sources. I think “garrison” is just a mistranslation of “مخيم” and the intended meaning is “refugee camp”. Mccapra (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that, since this place is not government recognized, WP:GNG applies. The first four here are primary sources, 5 is WP:ROUTINE coverage, and 6 about another camp and only mentions this one in passing. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airbiquity[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources for this company are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, Transportation, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep very difficult to find under all the regurgitated press releases but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has done a couple of more substantial pieces on the company,^[1]^[2] which looks to have been more prominent in the 2000s. (I don't think the articles are still available online – if anyone would like me to email the full text to review, let me know). I'm not yet fully convinced of notability – we would want to see decent coverage from more than one source – but the situation is not quite as bad as it looks. – Teratix ₵ 06:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cook, John (21 October 2005). "Ex-startup Airbiquity experiences a rebirth". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
^ Cook, John (22 January 2008). "Airbiquity rebounds with funding, deals". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tythan Adams[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep' There's this and a few other bits from his time in Scotland, just enough for a keep for me but close. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Atlanta[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking secondary sources specifically about the consulate. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Taiwan, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a defacto consulate, and not the same level as an embassy. Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalisms Across the Globe[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is very little to indicate that this book series is notable. While individual books and authors might be notable (as shown by reviews, citations, and scholarly coverage), there is nothing to indicate that this is notable as a "book series". This stands in contrast to for example The Cambridge History of the British Empire, which is covered by RS as a notable book series. Thenightaway (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Premier League overseas broadcasters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, United Kingdom, and England. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Campeonato Brasileiro Série A broadcasters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Brazil. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 UK Independence Party leadership election[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking coverage in secondary sources. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG. This is a very minor party with no elected representatives and only a couple of thousand members. AusLondonder (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, leaning on keep. WP:TOOSOON. Give it a bit more time and more sources and we can probably keep it. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 17:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, decidedly minor political event. TOOSOON applies to articles and not to nominations that come "too soon". The event is currently covered with two sentences in the UKIP article, and may be expanded to 9-10 sentences there. Geschichte (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan audio leaks controversy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:SINGLEEVENT. This fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't about a single event, and coverage has been ongoing for months and months at this point (see here, here, and here). The article needs an update, but as usual, AfD isn't clean-up. Cortador (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this article discusses audio leaks involving Pakistan's prime ministers, but the sources you provided doesn't pertain to prime ministers. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article starts with the sentence "The Pakistan audio leaks controversy stems from several leaked audio conversations involving Pakistan's prime minister Shehbaz Sharif and former prime minister Imran Khan among others." Emphasis mine. The second article talks about "the recent audio leaks involving politicians, judges, and their relatives", confirming that sources treat the audio leaks controversy as one event, whether or not a given leak featuring a (former) prime minister or not. Cortador (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the topic has indeed received extended coverage over a significant period, the accumulation of sources does not inherently justify the retention of an article. The core issue pertains to notability and whether the subject matter has sustained coverage that adds substantial information. The main concern is the notability and consistent, in-depth coverage. The provided references don’t seem to enhance the topic’s comprehension. While it’s true that the AfD isn’t just for clean-up, it does allow for evaluating an article’s significance. In this instance, the article seems to fall short of the expected encyclopedic depth and quality. samee converse 02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability. Also lack of depth. Wikibear47 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to point out that WP:SINGLEEVENT (cited in the nomination) explicitly doesn't apply here as that is for articles about people, not articles about events. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this should procedurally closed then for lack of a valid reason for deletion. Cortador (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's allow the AfD to run its course. As Samee pointed out, the primary concern still revolves around WP:N and consistent, in-depth coverage as demanded per WP:GNG. Lets not forget WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bhathal[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a perennial candidate with no notability outside of her repeated unsuccessful candidacies. The sources presented do not demonstrate in-depth coverage of her as a person, focusing on her various campaigns and a dispute with her party. After politics she appears to be a low-profile individual and this BLP amounts to a Pseudo-biography - "Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization? In the second case, it is likely that the event or organization is notable, but that the individual is not." AusLondonder (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Australia. AusLondonder (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we almost never create articles for unsuccessful political candidates, they have to be notable for activities/achievements outside running in elections. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for several reasons. She didn’t meet SIGCOV in the past, but does now in my judgement. There are a number of articles specifically discussing her- including several not yet featured on the article. See here:

Since the last deletion, she has also been the subject of a 2019 documentary, since shown at a number of film festivals. Just one example: https://cdocff.com.au/the-candidate/

https://amp.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/greens-candidate-horror-show-comes-to-the-big-screen-20190708-p525ae.html

it won an award at a film festival too

https://fan-force.com/films/the-candidate/

(The first screening of the documentary got its own article as a fun side note https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/strewth/green-alight/news-story/34f16b93c3f2d45b59addbf7c21a6053?amp)

I think the previous deletion was 100% correct- but in my opinion, this new content brings her up to notability. GraziePrego (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more to my vote

I understand the deletion arguments if all the coverage about her was solely about the 2018 by-election, but that isn't the case. The SBS articles (two from 2016, one from 2017) are about her at a previous federal election, and they do indeed provide "in-depth coverage of her as a person", describing her religion and the history of her father and grandfather. All of these articles are coverage from before the 2018 by-election. She's not just notable for a single event, she has notability through coverage over years.

Also, I would love clarification as to why Amelia Hamer is notable enough to keep, but this article isn't- Hamer is a candidate at an election that hasn't even been called yet. Bhathal has significantly more coverage. Both are notable enough to keep.

GraziePrego (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While other stuff exists is not the best argument to make at AfD, I have nominated Amelia Hamer for deletion as she is not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2018 Batman by-election - the articles that GraziePrego posted were published in 2016 and 2017, nearly in the height of her political activity. Most coverage I can find is concerning controversies of the by-election, which is also the focus of the documentary. I didn't find any coverage of her after she quit her party in 2019 at all, other than on her own website. This is effectively a WP:BLP1E, and I don't think there's any more to write about here than what is already covered in the by-election article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think it's been made evident that this article passes the WP:GNG. I don't agree that this article is a WP:BLP1E; she has been separately notable in the sources based on her previous candidacies; her final candidacy for the Greens; the allegations made surrounding her candidacy and the review that was undertaken by the Greens; her not seeking re-election; her leaving the Greens; and the documentary. To me, the coverage is about separate things. Although it could definitely be argued that coverage of the documentary is about the documentary and not her, given the documentary is not necessarily notable, it makes sense for it to be included in this article. Separately from the GNG, this individual was at the centre of a national media story with persistent coverage for multiple years. She does not have to continue making the news in perpetuity to be considered notable. J2m5 (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject comfortably meets WP:GNG. The argument stated above that "we almost never create articles for unsuccessful political candidates" is unsupported by Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. We accept articles as worthy of inclusion on the basis of their subject's notability. A political candidate could be chronically failing to get elected but be notable all the same, e.g. Ralph Nader who has never been elected U.S. president. Extensive and repeated reports and articles in major Australian media testify to subject's notability. She's been in the news for more than a decade. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This person has run for Australian parliament which doesn't have the same international standing as running for US president. In any case WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was originally closed but was reverted following talk page message. Closing admin, can you please give me some advice and how this will be closed? Toadette^Edit! 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Madras[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad. The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context. The only sourced entry has its own page with a very questionable notability. Geschichte (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Dhaka[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad. The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context (and not one single source). Geschichte (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jirón de la Unión (Metropolitano)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This bus stop is not notable. The sources only give passing coverage at best. Should be redirected to Metropolitano (Lima). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Peru. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaars-Townsend Airport[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable private airport. Coverage in secondary sources is nil. Could be redirected to JAARS. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and North Carolina. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ENAPU[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Article on a small company formed in 1970 with just "it exists" type info. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, Chile, and Peru. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Baitussalam[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly sourced to dubious sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, Education, Schools, Religion, Islam, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm glad to hear your acknowledgment of GVS as a dubious source. I fully agree that this promotional page should be removed, as it clearly fails to meet WP:N. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not acknowledge no such thing (I said mostly dubious), even if GVS is a valid source, it still does not meet notability criteria. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrightspeed X1[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article dates from 2006, a period when one might argue with success that Wikipedia was in a major growth phase, and that poorly sourced articles were acceptable on the basis that they might be improved. This one has been edited periodically, but not improved. It has a single source, and does not pass WP:GNG. It is interesting, but gives undue weight to the vehicle, which is only notable for its power train, not for anything else about it. There is thus no objection to merge and redirect as an outcome to this discussion, with the merge target being the source of the powertrain, or with the manufacturer of the chassis. There appears to be no individual article on the designer himself, or that might be a valid target. I am thus asking for consensus not only on the fate of the article, but on any merge target as well. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mihaaru Awards[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The topic is an award given by a local newspaper. The contents is a list of recipients, and the sourcing is just about recipients of it. Nothing approaching even 1/4 of GNG coverage of the topic. North8000 (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Sports, and Maldives. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 PSL Reserve League[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Also per wp:not regarding a stats only article.topic. A stats only article with data on a season of a reserve league. Per SNG these are not presumed notable and require GNG sourcing. Does not have and highly unlikely to exist. North8000 (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reserve league not presumed notable and with no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella fund[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failing notability that contains a single source only. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. (non-admin closure) Nomination withdrawn, all !votes to keep (non-admin closure) Polygnotus (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volker Mosblech[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A member of the 18th Bundestag. Page fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO and lacks any independent nongovernment sources. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Germany. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NPOL presumes notability for members of national legislatures. There's quite a bit of coverage in the German media of his death. AusLondonder (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this proposal is meaningless. per WP:NPOL. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: This nomination was meaningless. The page does pass WP:NPOL and there has been coverage in the German media of his death. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 17:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only the nominator can "withdraw" as such, but there is (and should not be) absolutely no chance of this getting deleted. Geschichte (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am the original nominator. I just got my username changed per WP:RENAME, while the AfD was active. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 18:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of alternative names for oceans[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDICTIONARY PepperBeast (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neocorelight (Talk) 15:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like most exonym lists. An article about different etymologies of names for the respective oceans could be interesting. —Tamfang (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn, all !votes to keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boudewijn de Geer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - once again (see also the AfD about his son), this is a poor nomination where there has clearly been no attempt to search for sources. A very quick Google search brings up so many sources, see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (I could go on and on). Clearly a notable figure. Giant Snowman 13:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It feels a little disingenuous to claim notability is clearly established based on a number of references which primarily relate to his recent death, rather than asserting a notable playing career. I suspect you would have been more challenged to find that quantity quickly prior to the last day or so. That said, multiple posthumous coverage may point to someone who was notable, otherwise why would multiple outlets report it, although I'm not quite as comfortable searching historic non-English media to know this confidently. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His recent death is making it hard to find other sources, but his death has been covered in seemingly every major Dutch newspaper, there were sources present before his death, and this is somebody who was a professional player in the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Australia, who later also became a coach. As I said - clearly notable, and this and the simultaneous AFD about his son (another notable sports figure) shows a lack of knowledge or effort from the nominator. WP:BEFORE was obviously not followed. Giant Snowman 13:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting you're wrong about notability, I just felt you could have offered some context when declaring that "google search brings up so many sources", as there is a very obvious reason that's now the case. But like I said before, usually multiple media outlets reporting the death of a sportsperson would indicate that person is notable. In my opinion, you can't reasonably assert this as being clear or obvious, as you did, just from death news reports within 48hrs of said passing. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also found and added multiple pre-death sources. As I said - the nominator patently did not attempt any form of search before rushing to AFD. Giant Snowman 15:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unclear why this article was nominated. Neither fails SPORTCRIT or the GNG. The nomination does fail NEXIST and BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are articles for every other minor, forgettable sports thick. Why not this one? Kelisi (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is not a reason to keep an article. Giant Snowman 17:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per @GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: This nomination was meaningless. The page does pass WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT and research proves his notability. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 17:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. (non-admin closure) Nomination withdrawn, all !votes to keep (non-admin closure) Polygnotus (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike de Geer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Dutch professional footballer. Page fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly no attempt at a BEFORE, giving a very quick Google for this guy brings up 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Clearly a notable figure. Giant Snowman 12:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BASIC for me on sources added by GS. Govvy (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unclear why this article was nominated. Neither fails SPORTCRIT or the GNG. The nomination does fail NEXIST and BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per @GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: This nomination was meaningless. The page does pass WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT and research proves his notability. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 17:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Renzo Vitale[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional piece written by a UPE. PROD declined. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Italy. UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the subject has had an ordinary career, with no indication of encyclopedic notability. — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KELM-LP[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Nevada. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems like a remnant of the looser inclusion standards in this topic area in 2010 — the only known/discussed programming was a full-time national service. There's probably little-to-no significant coverage here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Antigua and Barbuda, London[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources; sole source is a government list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Antigua and Barbuda. AusLondonder (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, which contains most of the same information so is more helpful to readers than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of the United Kingdom, Osaka[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consular office lacking sufficient secondary sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Japan, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge'. There is plenty of encyclopaedic information in this article that shouldn't be just thrown away. If additional secondary sources can't be found (remember some are likely to be in Japanese and/or predate Google) then it should be merged to a broader article, maybe Japan-United Kingdom relations. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:ORG. Any relevant material should be in Japan–United Kingdom relations. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Japan–United Kingdom relations. Not enough notability for a full page. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Pristina[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking in-depth coverage in secondary sources specifically about the embassy. Sources are primary sources, deprecated sources and Twitter. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Kosovo, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kosovo-United Kingdom relations, which I'm surprised doesn't contain this useful information. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvalu House[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An honorary consulate located in a residential house. No suitable secondary sources, only sources are a government diplomatic list and Embassypages.com. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Tuvalu, where most of the encyclopaedic information already is, or List of diplomatic missions in London, which is probably a better destination for someone searching for this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montserrat–United Kingdom relations[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the title the article is primarily about the representative office of Montserrat in London. Lacking secondary sources to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The current article is poor, but I'm certain that the topic is notable: after all, we're talking about the relations of the United Kingdom with one of its overseas territories! There should be some space somewhere for encyclopedic coverage of how the central government of the United Kingdom relates to (the government of) one of its overseas territories.

At the back of my mind, a history section could be easily constructed from existing content at Montserrat. From a Geography class case study in my school days, I remember the UK government's donations to Montserrat following its volcanic eruption received quite some coverage. Also, this (non-independent) webpage from the UK Government can point to other important events or episodes worth mentioning.

Nonetheless, three concerns prevent me from !voting Keep:

Firstly, would any such article simply be a WP:COATRACK? We would need to find some reliable, independent sources that discuss the topic qua topic, rather than a miscellany of "here's how the UK and Montserrat interact with each other".
Secondly, I notice other BOTs don't seem to have a "BOT–United Kingdom relations" article (cf. Foreign relations of the Falkland Islands redirects to British Overseas Territories#Foreign affairs; Foreign relations of Bermuda redirects to Bermuda#International relations. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, closed as Delete in March 2015).
Finally, I'm not convinced this is the best article title for the topic. It suggests that Montserrat is a sovereign state, rather than a self-governing territory, and that feels odd to me. And while I'd happily support a redirect or merge as a WP:ATD, I can't find any appropriate target.

So, my instinct is that there is a notable topic here, but the current article doesn't do it justice, and I don't think the article title does either. I'm not sure if the topic merits a standalone article, and there's no obvious alternative to deletion. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Representative of Montserrat, London as is the case for other British Overseas Territories Dn9ahx (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those other representative office articles have been deleted, others are at AfD now. AusLondonder (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KRFT-LD[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Missouri. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in Missouri#LPTV stations: I suppose it's possible that this 32-year-and-counting station has garnered some of the now-required significant coverage, but a station that mainly carries minor digital subchannel networks, and holds no area cable coverage and is largely only known to have carried full-time national services tends not to get that much (if any) coverage. This is another remnant of the looser "standards" of 2006 and no longer requires anything more than an {{R to list entry}} as an alternative to deletion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2015 Pan and Parapan American Games broadcasters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to nobody but the small minority of ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are announcements and does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamnuska Mountain Adventures[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable mountain guiding company in Canada (per N:CORP). There are some scraps of articles in local old Canadian newspapers, but nothing nationally or internationally (and zero SIGCOV anywhere). Some famous Canadian climbers have worked there, but the company never appears in any of main climbing RS (per WP:NCLIMB). Article had a lot of unreferenced promotional material, which I removed, but ultimately it has no future on Wikipedia. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, and Canada. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little of the content in the article is referenced or supported by reliable sources. Of the 6 references provided, 3 of the links are broken or the original articles have now been taken off-line. It fails on the basis of verifiability Sadly what is little sourced material is left does not qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Dfadden (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Primeira Liga broadcasters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are announcements and does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Portugal. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Football broadcast in India[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are announcements and does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and India. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: There are some sources at the article AusLondonder (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing significant that I can see... Giant Snowman 16:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there are sources. What do they do other than indicate those are evidences they are providing coverages to sports leagues? Are they helping with the subject's notability? SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Wikipedia is not a TV guide for viewers. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found [3].Esolo5002 (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish Professional Football League broadcasters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are announcments and does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, United Kingdom, and Scotland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Danish Superliga broadcasters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the only source is primary and does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Denmark. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poseidon (fictional ship)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only sourced to the novel itself and the article is only plot with no real-world commentary, besides from its comparison to RMS Queen Mary. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Film. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like this is not independently notable, but please ping me if good sources are identified. Maybe some of the content could be added to The Poseidon Adventure (novel), although that article is currently only sourced to the book itself. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atta Soja[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NBOX or GNG. Sources are database entries, press release with the same images, paid articles posted without bylines etc., Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Uganda. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Phillips (DJ)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Sarcastathon (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn’t meet the criteria for notability. 1. Out of 4 references, 2 are links to artist’s own pages. 2 are PR pieces. 2. They have never had any single or album chart in their home country or abroad. 3. Nor have they had a record certified as gold. 4. They’ve never ‘had important coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country’ 5. Not released any albums. 6. Hasn’t been a member of 2 or more notable groups. 7. Hasn’t become one of the most important representatives of a notable style or the most important of the local scene of a city 8 & 9. Hasn’t won any awards 10. Not made music for any notable other media 11. Hasn’t been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network 12. Nor have they been subject of any documentaries etc Sarcastathon (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Sarcastathon (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability in the article and I'm unable to find any significant coverage of him online. InDimensional (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Kaul (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one role as lead role, rest are all trivial roles thereby clearly failing WP:GNG. Imsaneikigai (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iftikhar A. Ayaz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." No secondary sources at all. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. @AusLondonder: Have added reliable secondary sources to the article now. Request withdrawal of AfD nomination. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources you have added, I'm not sure a single one is actually significant coverage of him as an individual. One source is the Court Circular column in the Daily Telegraph which reports he awarded an Tuvalu Order of Merit to Prince William. Another article is about persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan which name-checks him. I'm not seeing this as meeting WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La alta escuela[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sources to show they meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I have found 4 citations and added to the article, including one from Vice. The reliability of VICE is questionable per WP:RSP, however, I believe that would not apply to entertainment and music articles. In addition, the band may meet criteria #7 of WP:MUSICBIO, which says "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city."RolandSimon (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of IT Training[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. No significant coverage in reliable sources could be found either under the name "Institute of IT Training" or its apparent new name "Learning & Performance Institute". I know it's not relevant to notability, but the article reads like an advertisement and is borderline WP:G11 despite having 63 revisions over 14 years. Mz7 (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Mz7 (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A09|(talk) 10:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarang Jain[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hard to meet WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bakhtar40, as a fairly inexperienced editor (131 edits), you need to read WP:BEFORE, "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources". It is not just the sources actually used in the article that count. A simple Google search for Tarang Jain Varroc (he owns 86%) gives us:

https://www.forbes.com/profile/tarang-jain/?sh=5a0e545f2676

https://www.forbesindia.com/article/big-bet/twinwin-venture-how-tarang-jain-built-a-global-automotive-business/49915/1

https://www.forbesindia.com/article/leaderhip-awards-2013/tarang-jain-taking-risks-to-derisk-varroc/36383/1

https://www.autocarpro.in/feature/varroc-tarang-jain-autocar-professional-3428

https://www.themachinist.in/interviews/2333/investments-help-companies-stay-competitive

https://www.cnbctv18.com/business/companies/varroc-engineering-striving-for-double-digit-margin-by-end-of-fy24-says-cmd-17046041.htm

There are plenty more. And who knows what else in Hindi, etc? Edwardx (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Very reliable sources like forbes have enough coverage on the well known billionaire from India. Google search will also display results with many reliable sources on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ajmer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no such a battle named "Battle of Ajmer" in any of the WP:RS nor any Historians named a battle as "Battle of Ajmer" between Mher tribe and Ghurids. The article body talks about a conflict between Mher tribe and Ghurids, whereas the infobox describes Rajputs as the belligerents. Neither from the source of R. C Majumdar, nor from Romila Thapar, I could even find a scattered line about this event. The actual event per cited is the prelude of Battle of Kasahrada (1197). The current content could be added into this parent article (edit: it is already present the background section). Fails WP:GNG, and not found any RS calling the event by the name of "Battle of Ajmer". Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Geography, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Very Weak Keep. The sources from Majumdar and Thapar, like ImperialAficionado I too could not verify or find on this Battle and would have opted for delete but the source from Dr Ashoka Srivastav from Department of history at University of Gorakhpur had me hanging from where the page got its attribution from. There is need for improvement on this page and some more detail that is missing or wrong about the battle, siege, and the belligerents. From Srivastav Belligerents were Mhers, many Hindu Rajas, Raja of Nagor, Raja of Nahrwala. It does not say Rajputs. More sources will help too. RangersRus (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Mellor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unref BLP; I couldn't find sources to establish she can meet WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Figa[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could find references to this place as a villa estate, not clear if fit meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. I did not find evidence of notable archaeology. Boleyn (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, Geography, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reference to a site by this name in Corsica, and am curious where it came from originally. @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: your initial edit summary suggests that you might have been working from a list or database? – Joe (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Co and Fr articles don't list any sources. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Los Zodiac[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was hard to assess, especially as there are varying spellings used. I couldn't find enough to show it meets WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Survived 2005 AfD ([[4]], but standards very different then. Boleyn (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Peru. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peruvian rock:

From this it seems like there is some level of coverage in 2018's Demoler. El rock en el Perú 1965-1975 by Carlos Torres Rotondo
There may be some leads from this: "Very little has been written about the History of Rock in our environment. Only sketches (as some newspapers usually publish) and some studies such as the one done by Jose Miguel Gonzalo Garcia, entitled Development of Youth Music in Peru, give us a brief idea of this whole matter. But the closest thing to a treatise on the so-called underground current or alternative music comes from the university works of which I mention (but always from a giraffe perspective, based more on journalistic data or conversations with subways, than on personal experiences), the job that my friend Miguel Lescano did at the beginning of the 90s, or the Underground Rock -10 Years of Wild Operas by Alvaro Olano Dextre. All of them are the first formal attempts to capture a history of underground rock. Someone will try to object to me by saying, what about Pedro Cornejo's book? I'm sorry to contradict you little brother, but the Game without Borders - Approaches to Contemporary Music that Pedro published in 1994 is not considered, not even by Pedro Cornejo himself, a total work, at least it is not what many (like me) expected from Pedro Cornejo Guinassi, graduate in Philosophy, professor at La Católica, participant in the first years of underground rock, editor and collaborator of alternative publications and other publications."
es-wiki does not have an article for them, and nor are they actually covered at es:Rock_del_Perú or es:Historia_del_rock_en_el_Perú
They are not the Los Zodiacs from Getxo in Spain who had a song in a Pepsi ad (see this from El Correo)

I can't see what's in Torres, etc, but there's otherwise a dearth of reliable sourcing for the band other than being one of a number of early 60s Peruvian rock bands. Unless adequate info is discovered in Torres or other RS, redirect with retention of history and categories seems the sensible option. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Published Reporter[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Some of the references don't even mention the subject and the rest are either unreliable or not in-depth. CNMall41 (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Delaware. CNMall41 (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The publication has gone through significant changes from what I know and for the record, I'm going to second the suggestion for deletion. Fishnagles (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of EuroLeague broadcasters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a directory. Mccapra (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Portugal[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the only one source are nothing but announcement, not asserting notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Portugal. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a directory. Mccapra (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Brazil[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:NLIST. Sports contracts are dynamic with broadcasters, even more so with the entry of streaming. This list doesn't seem relevant. Svartner (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these article seem to me like the lists of airline destinations that often appear at AfD. Sourced to primary sources or routine announcements, essentially directories, and unclear whether they are updated regularly enough even to be useful as directories. Mccapra (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Yemen University[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I know it is unusual to delete a University - but I cannot find any online information about the University (except the bare fact that it is on Yemeni University lists - although I am not sure how old these lists are). It appears no longer to have a website. Links are either not orking or provide no helpful info. No obvious lkinks to anything else. The wiki page suggests the unbioversity is strong in nutrition - but https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9517972/ suggests it is not on the 2022 list of Yemeni universities awarding decrees in nutrition. Perhaps it has changed its name or amalgamated? Newhaven lad (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Yemen. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is entirely unsourced (general external links are used as reference) and filled with original research. Before reaching a conclusion whether to delete or keep I think it'd be fair if someone draftified it and use sources then we could've judged it based on it's merit. But if it stands as is, then delete seems impending. X (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switch Scotland[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about a digital radio multiplex has been tagged for notability since 2012 and I'm unable to find much in the way of SIGCOV to assert notability - just articles about stations opening and closing on the multiplex signal, which are primarily about the stations and not the multiplex. There is !precedent for redirecting these articles to the article for their parent company [5]. Most of this article consists of unsourced WP:OR about stations being added, deleted and moved around on various digital radio multiplexes. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Kwasi Debrah[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is not notable, WP:REFBOMB with sources written by the subject or the company he works for, 95% of the sources emanated from JoyNews where he works. As seen [here] and [here, ]. There are even cases where the sources directly came from the subject as seen [here]. Apart from that, most of the sources are not Reliable and are not Independent Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Journalism, Poetry, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All these anomalies are corrected Gyanford (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Seattle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consular office that fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Lacking in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Sources at the article are mostly irrelevant, such as an opinion piece in a newspaper about Taiwan and China and a transcript of President Carter's address about recognition of China. AusLondonder (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Taiwan, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to suggest notability for this topic. Mccapra (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Cape Verde, Washington, D.C.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources and no in-depth coverage available. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Ivory Coast, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNCR-LD[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in North Carolina#LPTV stations: The article at least claims that there at least was some local programming (a newscast), but that statement has been there since the article's creation, and the only real "expansion" since then has been to the usual solely-database-sourced permastub of the type that is finally being rejected in this topic area. Maybe there's more significant coverage out there, but by and large this is another remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006 that no longer warrants anything more than an {{R to list entry}} as an alternative to deletion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHFL-CD[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in North Carolina#LPTV stations: It isn't quite the type of all-national programming service so many LPTVs are, but I'm not convinced this likely-run-of-the-mill religious station has much significant coverage either. Likely a remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haini Wolfgramm[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Member of a notable band, but per WP:MUSICBIO, not sufficiently notable independent of the band for a separate article. In a WP:BEFORE search, I can only find passing mentions of him in articles about the band. The Grammy nomination was for the band. He and his large family were interviewed on a national TV programme in 1994, and that interview was covered by some other media, but that would appear to be WP:BLP1E, and doesn't quite get him over the line for WP:MUSICBIO. A redirect to the band article could be an alternative to deletion, but I'm bringing it here first for discussion. Wikishovel (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Wikishovel (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Jets (Minnesota band). He has done nothing independently notable outside the band, and the article is simply an attempt to fill space with some tidbits from his personal life. The fact that he owns a small record company could possibly be mentioned briefly at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend doing the same for Eugene Wolfgramm and Elizabeth Wolfgramm, for the exact same reasons. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Sindh Premier League[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT. The tournament doesn't have official status with no lasting effect. Robo^Cric Let's chat 05:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. Robo^Cric Let's chat 05:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Robo^Cric Let's chat 06:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sindh Premier League Not enough coverage for separate season article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist–Leninist Centre in Mexico[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failure of WP:ORG; the article subject is a small, non-notable organisation. The article has been unsourced for over a decade. I could not find any reliable sources in English, and a translation of the name to Spanish yielded no results either. Yue🌙 04:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WGBS-LD[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is some sourcing which I have added, all from the 1994–98 period. They were on local cable and got coverage from that. Once Cox dropped them, they really drop off in local coverage. I could go either way. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretoria Wireless Users Group[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was unable to find any mention of this organization anywhere, hence seems to fail WP:ORGCRIT. Virtually all the news about this organization comes from 'mybroadband.co.za', a rather niche trade publication focused on broadband which does not appear in the searches. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and South Africa. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South African wireless community networks as ATD. There is a plausible claim of notability in the article but I can’t find sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arboricultural Association[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to be notable. A search does not reveal any non-trivial coverage of the subject. The only source in the article is primary (the organization's website). XabqEfdg (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. XabqEfdg (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Biology. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Its journal Arboricultural Journal: International Journal of Urban Forestry (formerly Arboricultural Association Journal) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q96326792 is indexed in Scopus. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep when you are the authoritative body in a niche sector there’s a bit of a notability conundrum - all the learned and professional papers are published by you, all the spokespeople are on your board, and pretty much everything connected with the topic is associated with you in some way. Nevertheless I find 1, multiple references in Horticulture Week, and they are the publishers of the scholarly journal of their discipline. Mccapra (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xuanchuan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see the need for this article to stand alone, the current article could well be merged back into propaganda in China in several parts, some of which could be split out and put into Wiktionary. So I think it would be better to merge into Propaganda in China#Terminology. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 01:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and China. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 01:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Especially if you are the one to do the merger - you are a good and careful editor. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose owing to unnecessary wordiness. Merging Propaganda in China (7726 words) and Xuanchuan (1560 words) would result in 9286 words, which exceeds the Article size guidelines. Keahapana (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keahapana: This is not a major problem, and given that a lot of the content is in fact duplicated and a significant portion of the xuanchuan content is unsourced, it is entirely possible to trim it down to meet the standard. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 05:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Propaganda in China#Terminology per Tokisaki Kurumi. This is just the Chinese word for "propaganda", and the sources listed are all discussion of propaganda in China rather than the word specifically. We are well served by a breif discussion at Propaganda in China#Terminology and mentions in other relevant articles. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Fitzgerald[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable for only winning Survivor: Kaôh Rōng. I think her runner-up finish in Survivor: Winners at War doesn't have enough depth or substantial coverage to be as equally notable as her Survivor win, despite being highly focused there. Same can be said about her appearances in The Challenge, where she hasn't yet won. I don't think she qualifies for WP:NENT either. Must be redirected to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng per WP:BIO1E (if WP:BLP1E doesn't apply), WP:PAGEDECIDE, or WP:BIODELETE. George Ho (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Television, and New Jersey. George Ho (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think more independent reliable source are needed.--Meligirl5 (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do independent reliable sources make BLP1E or BIO1E inapplicable? Even meeting WP:N or GNG would not outweigh the topic's potential failures to comply with the project's policy toward such biographies, but I bet you disagree, eh? George Ho (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly understood she was only notable because she won in a notable event. But I can’t say delete or keep because the biography tells more than just the notable event but fails providing sources to meet WP:GNG. So I just had to suggest an opinion that could help to meet WP:GNG. Other editors are welcome to say what they feel.--Meligirl5 (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion because of her performance in both of her Survivor seasons, but I agree more independent reliable sources are needed. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meligirl5 and JohnAdams1800: What are your thoughts on redirecting the article to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng, an alternative to deletion? George Ho (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Information Science and Technology "St. Paul The Apostle"[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article states they have 375 students, which is not a university. Many of the claims look too much, and none are verified. From their own web page the number of faculty is very small. Making a Beowulf cluster is not notable. More significant coverage is needed, this fails almost everything. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment State universities and colleges tend to be notable, although this is a comparatively minor vocational one. It appears reasonably likely that WP:SOURCESEXIST, but searching in Cyrillic is difficult for many of us. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. Universities are normally notable, although even by North Macedonian standards this one appears to be quite small (the other public universities in North Macedonia for which we have articles each have more than 10 times as many students as this one). Yes, searching in Macedonian is difficult for us here, but the article in the Macedonian Wikipedia isn't that much better. At worst, though, redirect to List of universities in North Macedonia rather than deleting this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have generally kept universities founded by statute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what policy? The Banner talk 18:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Seconding the policy question. Also, as I stated in the original nomination, I could not verify the claims -- maybe someone else can. For instance, I am doubtful about all the claimed collaborations with universities many times their size, the 14 BA & MA degrees, the ranking. I could not verify any of these. It is easy to write on a web page, but normally we look for verifiability, WP:N. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Based on WP:CONSENSUS over many AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I am asking for a policy. Not for a circular reasoning. The Banner talk 23:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, that policy would be WP:CONSENSUS! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am still asking for a policy that says specifically that we are keeping "universities founded by statute". WP:CONSENSUS does not state that. And saying that we keep universities because we kept universities in the past because we kept universities in the past etc. is a circular reasoning. Not based on any policy. The Banner talk 17:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the top level polytechnic of a nation that was founded by the national government is a notable act in itself. There are numerous US institutions with fewer undergraduates (Caltech) or even 1/10th of the total number of students (Deep Springs College) that are notable, so the size of the institution isn't a determining factor; the significance of the institution to a nation's identity is a glimpse at the importance to a people. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two points:

Please check your numbers, you are way off. Caltech has close to 3 times (1023) the number of undergrads per year, to compare to the total number of 357 for both BS & MS, plus Caltech admitted 1440 grads. https://registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics

You ignored the key point -- essentially nothing on this Wikipedia page is verifiable. The Deep Springs College page has 37 sources, plus stacks of other material that verifies notability.

I politely request that you demonstrate their notability if you want to defend them. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If we are to evaluate only based on the inserted references, then this fails every notability guideline, but if sources in foreign (local) language exist, and are promptly introduced, then things could change. I feel it's necessary that someone with proficiency in the local language performs some searches and shares the results. X (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Ldm1954 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of universities in North Macedonia until proper sourcing can be identified. JoelleJay (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against recreation if sources become available. I conducted some searches in Macedonian but failed to locate significant secondary source coverage. Right now we are doing no service to our readers by having an article unsupported by sources making various dubious claims. AusLondonder (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Redirection to List of universities in North Macedonia is an excellent alternative to deletion. I'm on the fence as far as independent notability, leaning very very slightly on the keep side, essentially per the argument of Necrothesp. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply stating we have kept other articles is not an argument. AusLondonder (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep. I got some help from one of our students here with language. There's an interview with the vice-rector [6], which we probably can't use for facts, but which I think contributes to notability. Substantial piece in Makedonsko Sonce on a potential reorganization [7]. There's coverage in national newspapers related to a labor disagreement [8], and in context of national university organization [9] (for example, lots of stories of the latter type). Lots of coverage in Ohrid News, for example [10][11][12][13]. I found perfoming Google site-searches for "Универзитетот за информатички науки и технологии" to be helpful. Overall, I'm seeing enough consistent coverage over time for a reasonable notability case. As other editors have been saying, this is as one would expect for one of a small number of state universities. I am not impressed with the comparison with CalTech, but I think it might be helpful to compare with e.g. the University of Maine School of Law: a small technical school that is nonetheless of regional importance and wider interest, and that is appropriate for encyclopedic coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Khyber bombing[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the sources provided are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. Whilst it may be terrorism, the sources do not definitively establish that. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023, where it's already mentioned. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or merge selectively) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023#April. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pelangi Hotel (Bintan)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For some reason, the nominator considers that all the hotels and resorts in Bintan Regency fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aymatth2 Because they are really not? I'm very skeptical of these assesment that they are "notable" per WP:CORP. Hotels rarely fullfil it. I can see if its in Bali or Jakarta but Bintan?Nyanardsan (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hotels like these are often notable. A typical resort hotel is a large structure or structures covering a large area. It may have interesting architecture. Construction is expensive and messy. It employs a lot of people. Events are held at it. Journalists stay there. It changes ownership. Any or all of these aspects may be discussed in some depth. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been to Bintan and it's high end, caters to wealthy businessmen from Singapore looking for a quick getaway in particular. Economically it's closer tied to Singapore than Indonesia and you'll find these resorts feature in the top southeast Asian magazines. It is possible that some like this might not have the sources we need online though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't one of the resort hotels, and seems to be a lesser notable one inland. Can't find adequate coverage of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Pretorius[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's this and this along with other coverage in South African and European media. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing enough sustained coverage to justify GNG, including in the links above. JoelleJay (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Woods[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable character, incredibly minor side character who appears as in three episodes. Fails WP:NCHARACTER and GNG Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, and Science fiction and fantasy. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Questions Not so sure, there are some sources. Would this publication count as a reliable source? Likewise the character appears in Women in Doctor Who: Damsels, Feminists and Monsters, but I cannot see the extent. Can anyone else? There's also Gender and the Quest in British Science Fiction Television, pp. 186, 206-207, [14] and [15]. Daranios (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That pdf appears to be a student paper, so I would say no. What Culture is unreliable and that Digital Spy listicle is just a basic plot summary. The second book doesnt seem great either. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 11:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable character. Indagate (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Shan states[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a collection of 77 unsourced genealogies, with four footnotes. There is probably a notable list for this topic, but in its current state, WP:TNT is needed to make room; if all the unsourced genealogy material was removed, there would a a title and categories. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. // Timothy :: talk 13:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Calling this a genealogy would be the same as calling List of French monarchs a genealogy; technically not incorrect but a bit silly as it is a list of rulers. Certainly passes WP:NLIST; for instance, in the appendix of this book, there is a list of the rulers of about 35 of these states from 1887 to 1959. It seems the majority of the present article is derived from WorldStatesman [16], which is of course deprecated. WP:TNT is an option that is on the table. Curbon7 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I don't know if it's past the WP:TNT tipping point yet. It's likely that much of the content could be sourced from the generic references. Don't think the material is necessarily controversial enough to mandate WP:INLINE citations. Of course, it's also likely that WorldStatesman is the true source, hence the weak keep. I don't personally have much time to edit this week, but I could go through the book Curbon listed or find other books I do have on Shan states and try to inline cite some the week after that. But doesn't seem unrecoverable and full of misinformation just because of a lack of inline citations. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 03:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are some recent (last couple of weeks) examples of why TNT is needed: [17], [18], [19]. None of this is sourced, no one can tell if these edits are correct or not. The article is too far gone to expect anyone to fix it. // Timothy :: talk 08:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good selections- as far as I can tell it isn't merely even changes in romanizations/inconsistent dating between chronicles. Changing my vote to agree on TNT grounds. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 17:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially no citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MobiBLU DAH-1500i[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable – many MP3 players that have been reviewed by "big" magazine websites like CNET do not (and should not) have their own articles. The articles nominated just contain technical specification of the product (or products, if you consider them to be separate).

The only reason for notability seems to be the claim that this is the "world's smallest" MP3 player, but the citation for that goes to a PCMag page which says "... billed as the "world's smallest" digital audio player, and we're pretty sure that's true" which is not any form of proof of the claim. Furthermore, "billed" seems to imply that these are the words of the manufacturer only, and indeed I have not been able to find any sort of official confirmation of the claim. AlexGallon (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason I am also nominating Cube2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion. AlexGallon (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz – I left a message over at your talk page related to this nomination. AlexGallon (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1, 2, 3, 4 A gadget that was widely reviewed at the time of its release from major pubs and had lasting coverage. Tech products's notability largely depends on reviews. Not every MP3 players in the market get reviewed from big tech pubs. The only reason for notability seems to be the claim that this is the "world's smallest" MP3 player, but the citation for that goes to a PCMag page which says "... billed as the "world's smallest" digital audio player, and we're pretty sure that's true" which is not any form of proof of the claim. Here's a more appropriate source that independently states the claim: The bite-size MobiBLU DAH-1500i is the smallest, most impressively full-featured Flash player we've seen yet. - PCMag UK, Jun 27, 2018. X (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of thousands of mp3 players. Refs don't say anything, they're mundane reviews. Desertarun (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French exonyms[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Europe. PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT, not to mention being entirely unsourced. ---- D'n'B-t -- 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this was just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago, and has been re-nominated by the same nominator. Definitely a WP:TROUT or possibly even sanctions may be in order. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago

That's... that's the point of re-nominating. To... create consensus where it wasn't possible to do so before. BrigadierG (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the mass deletion of all exonym listicles failed to reach consensus, so they are now listed separately. —Tamfang (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well, that's still ridiculous then. The UN has a working group specifically on French exonyms, as does the French government, showing this is a valid encyclopedic topic. I don't know how any of you are getting to WP:NOTDICTIONARY here - these are not definitions or dictionary entries but rather valid lists - and WP:LISTCRUFT is simply an "i don't like it" argument. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an article on the working group might be interesting. But how is an endless list of French words for places more worthy than a list of French words for spices or engine parts? —Tamfang (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or Bosnian names of primate families —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that link, the author refers to the project as an attempt to create a database. Sure would be a shame if there was a policy called WP:NOTDATABASE. BrigadierG (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a database, though, it's a valid WP:LIST. SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In most of our lists, most of the entries have their own articles. Is there any prospect of an article about the French word for Bangkok? —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST specifically says the entries in the list do not need to be notable enough for their own article, just that the group or set is notable. A simple Google scholar search lends more credibility to the fact this set is notable, such as [20] [21] [22], including (but not linking here) two articles on French exonyms for Polish place names. SportingFlyer T·C 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

… I meant to add: no consensus because not all such listicles are equally trivial, i.e., some do more than belabor the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words (including placenames) to its own phonology and orthography. —Tamfang (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. There was no consensus because there was simply too much in the nom for one discussion. My bad. So, I'm going back through the area in a more rational way. Re-listing when no consensus emerges is what's supposed to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nominator, this is a case of WP:NOTDICTIONARY BrigadierG (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Please include a link to any previous AFDs concerning these articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still notable, there are plenty of sources available, needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you make that more specific? Notable why, what sort of improvement? —Tamfang (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BoomCase[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Overspecialized organization with no lasting public relevance: the article makes a pretty good case for the article to be treated as a flash-in-the-pan media sensation, rather than of encyclopedic notability. Sadads (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi Sadads,

I think it is a big stretch to say BoomCase was just a flash-in-the-pan media sensation. Lets start with some of the bigger things.

As the article states BoomCase has been featured in at least 3 published Books. The first book, Art without waste, was published in 2014, four years after it started gaining media attention. The second book Retro and Vintage Design, also published in 2014, is highlighting their contributions to the design world. The third book, Made to Last published in 2017, goes even further than these books with an in-depth multipage look at what BoomCase has done with design and innovation. If multiple authors are writing about BoomCase 7+ years after its founding, I cant see how it could be considered a "flash in the pan".

Secondly, I would argue It has even transcended into popular culture by being featured in a globally broadcasted main event WWE wrestling match - Brock Lesnar BoomBox by BoomCase | The BoomCase© , being used in commercials - BoomCase in H&R Block Commercial | The BoomCase© , in a popular Bollywood movie, Ae Dil Hai Mushkil , https://theboomcase.com/boomcase-in-bollywood-film/ , featured on the Ukraine's #1 travel show in 2015 , https://theboomcase.com/boomcase-featured-on-ukraines-1-travel-show/, and being used for art work on beer cans - https://theboomcase.com/melvin-beer-x-boomcase/ , among many other things. (Blog | The BoomCase©)

There are a lot of things one could include just by looking at their Blog (Blog | The BoomCase©) or press page (https://theboomcase.com/press/) that would counter the flash in the pan idea.

Finally, the BoomCase is still an operating company 14+ years later. Usually, one hit wonders peak and then disappear. Seeing that BoomCase is still around being featured in press, tv and used for architectural projects in multiple countries with their new speaker wall product I can't agree with the labeling of "flash-in-the-pan media sensation". MistaKoko (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out MistaKoko's editing since September 2019 has been virtually exclusively geared towards getting this company's article into mainspace – they almost certainly have a conflict of interest. – Teratix ₵ 14:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I appreciate your thorough perspective Sadads, I respectfully disagree with the characterization of BoomCase as an "overspecialized organization with no lasting public relevance." On the contrary, BoomCase has demonstrated enduring significance and cultural impact in the realm of portable audio technology whether you are familiar with them or not.

Firstly, BoomCase's longevity speaks volumes about its relevance and staying power. Since its inception in 2009, the company has continued to thrive and evolve, expanding its reach and influence both domestically and internationally. This sustained presence contradicts the notion of being a mere "flash-in-the-pan" phenomenon.

Furthermore, BoomCase's contributions extend beyond mere media sensation. The company has been involved in numerous art installations and collaborations, showcasing its innovative approach to design and technology. Its products have been sought after by a diverse clientele, including celebrities and influencers, further underscoring its cultural significance and relevance.

Additionally, BoomCase's impact on popular culture cannot be overlooked. From its presence in mainstream media to its integration into various events and settings, BoomCase has become synonymous with style, innovation, and quality in the portable audio market.

In light of these considerations, I believe that BoomCase warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. I personally hate that a company can exist for this long and have physical impact on communities and still have to fight for a basic Wiki page like they don't exist, they do exist and have accomplished more than most companies. They deserve a page. Mrironmonkey (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using LLMs to write your comments is highly disrespectful to other editors. I trust this !vote will be given zero weight. – Teratix ₵ 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using LLM's is going to be inevitable when you suffer from dyslexia, how does Wikipedia plan on functioning in the singularity next year or the next decade if you can't communicate clearly? I understand you may be resistant to AI right now, but it's going to be a huge part of our lives whether you like it or not. It's like being mad I used spellcheck. Address the points I made in the original post, and not something irrelevant to the argument.

I stand by my original point that if you lived in Northern/Southern California and you are in this space you have heard of Boomcase, and they deserve to be recognized in some capacity. Mrironmonkey (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you may be resistant to AI right now, but it's going to be a huge part of our lives whether you like it or not Cut it with this patronising, condescending attitude, you don't have a clue what I think about AI beyond my specific view that it's incredibly rude to generate arguments with the click of a button and expect real humans to invest their own time in debunking them, especially when said arguments have nothing to do with how we actually determine whether an article is warranted. – Teratix ₵ 11:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete name-checks some impressive-sounding sources, but they either only discuss the company in passing or seem to be advertorials rather than genuinely independent coverage. – Teratix ₵ 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Mrironmonkey is a WP:SPA who has made no other editor to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not true at all - please actually look at the sources and read them. Not reading the sources is highly disrespectful to the editors and I trust this vote will be given very little weight. -

Sources discussing the company in more than passing plus interviews -

https://www.cnet.com/news/its-a-boom-box-its-a-vintage-suitcase-no-its-a-boomcase/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boomcase-brings-back-the-boombox-using-old-suitcases_n_914933

https://www.gq.com/story/family-ties-and-a-summer-slam-dunk-ambsn-and-boomcase-by-mr-simo

https://web.archive.org/web/20141224233949/http://blog.urbanoutfitters.com/blog/uo_studio_visits_boomcase

Yes some are short but wired or the NYTimes are not running an ad for BoomCase nor are any of the blogs or websites sourced -

Custom Boomboxes Fashioned from Vintage Suitcases | WIRED

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/garden/audio-equipment-shopping-with-jonah-takagi.html

Plus the books -

BoomCaseBookMadetoLast-2.jpg (1600×2314) (wp.com) - https://books.google.com/books?id=NNyjAQAACAAJ

https://library.tcdc.or.th/record/view/b00032508#:~:text=Technology%20%26%20Entertainment-,Boom%20Case,-Argus%20C3

https://i0.wp.com/theboomcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/retrodesignBookBoomCaseBraunBoomBox.jpg MistaKoko (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the sources. You hardly expected me to write up individual refutations of 32 individual sources, did you? Instead I summarised their nature.

Look, I'll level with you. Pick the three best sources you've got and I'll write out individual evaluations of them. – Teratix ₵ 08:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete References seems to particularly promotional, many offering product for sale failing WP:SIRS and breaking the Terms of use, or a passing mentions of type that fail WP:CORPDEPTH or the type of PR that are paid placements by the company that fail WP:ORGIND. Either way, the whole thing is a crock and straight up advert that should be G11'd from the get go. It currently fails WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 06:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On that top of that it was declined multiples times from AFC, before being accepted by a editor who is now checkuser blocked. The whole thing is absolute crock. scope_creep^Talk 06:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are not even reading the sources. How are these passing mentions? What proof do you have that the sources are PR? You cant just make claims when you have no idea what would have caused certain websites to write about a product. Just because a product received significant coverage doesn't make it paid. BoomCase is very small company of 5 or less people that started out by going viral I doubt they had money try to pay all these newspapers, books, and blogs to cover them. Come on now.

https://www.cnet.com/news/its-a-boom-box-its-a-vintage-suitcase-no-its-a-boomcase/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boomcase-brings-back-the-boombox-using-old-suitcases_n_914933

https://www.gq.com/story/family-ties-and-a-summer-slam-dunk-ambsn-and-boomcase-by-mr-simo

MistaKoko (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are UPE editors. We can go through the references if need be. scope_creep^Talk 06:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A more thorough review of the best sources MistaKoko has identified on their talk page:

CNET: A 400-word article is certainly significant coverage. My concern is it is not independent coverage. The author opens by noting I got in touch with the company's owner, Dominic Odbert, to learn more about his designs – i.e. the article is heavily dependent on Odbert himself for information. My concerns are heightened when I read the second paragraph: Each BoomCase [link to store] is a unique creation, so if you see one on Odbert's Web site that catches your fancy, don't think about it too long, because once it's sold, there's never going to be another one exactly like it. This reads like a sales appeal, not independent analysis. Ditto the last paragraph: Prices range from under $300 to $4,000, but the most popular models cost $500. That sounds very reasonable for hand-crafted, made-in-the-States audio designs.
The second source is hosted by HuffPost, but scrolling to the bottom reveals it was written for AOL Small Business, which appears to be a form of trade publication focused on entrepreneurs. We have a presumption against using trade publications as evidence for notability. It also has a similar problem to the CNET source where much of its content appears to depend on information from Odbert himself.
California Home Design again has similar problems to CNET where virtually all the content is either Odbert's own quotes or information provided by Odbert, and ends by calling for readers to Check out all that’s happening in BoomCase news on Odbert’s blog [link] and all BoomCases available for sale at his web store. [link]
GQ is an interview with Odbert and his cousin, again with no independent analysis beyond their own responses to the questions.
MELO is again mostly interview content providing no independent analysis beyond Odbert's responses. The little original writing is highly promotional, saying the Odbert brothers are changing the speaker game for good and call each Boomcase ... an extension of its owner's creative spirit. – Teratix ₵ 09:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks for taking the time to look closer at some of the sources. While I understand what you are saying, the thing is most articles like this are going to be very similar to this no matter what. Many reviews, interviews at about a certain product or company are going to include links to where to buy a product, list prices or write what they think is good or bad about it. Just because it does so doesn't mean its not an independent article. You would be hard pressed to find a review or write up on a product that does not include its price. I understand if these articles were about a large speaker company such as JBL or Pioneer and then trying to say these are all paid PR or non independent but being that BoomCase is a very small company its highly doubtful they had anything to do with the articles. It seems to me the viral nature of their story/product helped them receive so much press. There are so many things I Wish to cite from their press page but they are unfortunately from magazines that are not available online. (Press | The BoomCase©)

Also this has now become an argument started by Sadads about a "flash in the pan" sensation to an argument about references. I believe I should have the opportunity to find and improve the sources instead of a complete deletion. I think have shown it is not a flash in the pan by my first reply to Sadads.

There are still the three published books cited that I would like to use to write a better article. But im still not sure how to do this since I cant find the txt online other than a few images from BoomCases press page, but even then its not the full txt.

This is from above but just to show again the books - The first book, Art without waste, was published in 2014, four years after it started gaining media attention. The second book Retro and Vintage Design, also published in 2014, is highlighting their contributions to the design world. The third book, Made to Last published in 2017, goes even further than these books with an in-depth multipage look at what BoomCase has done with design and innovation. If multiple authors are writing about BoomCase 7+ years after its founding, I cant see how it could be considered a "flash in the pan". -

I have asked for help with this but have not gotten any unfortunately. I will keep trying.

Thanks again. MistaKoko (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For (hopefully) more input on the sourcing, which is being strongly questioned as to its contribution to our SIGCOV requirements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George John Seaton[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. All the significant sources dealing with the topic are written by the subject. All others simply reference background story and not the subject. Fails WP:GNG . An earlier version was draftified because it lacked any credible claim to notability, so the same authored simply created this new version in mainspace without improving notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Africa, France, England, and South America. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - as well as the lack of notability, the whole thing reads like a school essay. Or maybe from a chat-bot. This is highlighted by the following comment in the lede: "This article explores George John Seaton's life as a prisoner, slave, and man. It will include researched documentation as well as information from his personal book, Isle of the Damned, to piece together the story of this man's intriguing life."--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like a school essay because the person who wrote the article, Jeorgiaobrien, is a university student who made it for an assignment. Just putting that out there in case anyone else who comes across this doesn't know. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose moving the article into the draftspace. As the user above noted, this is part of a student assignment, in which first-year college students are grappling with understanding the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. The article was prematurely moved to the mainspace and correctly flagged—but it can be turned into a feasible Wikipedia article because there is a relevant source base.

Seaton’s notability primarily arises from the extensive reception of his autobiography, which occurred in two waves: 1) initial reception upon publication in the early 1950s, around the time Devil's Island ceased operations as a penal colony, by a largely Anglophone public and 2) the use of his autobiographical account in the contemporary historiography on French Guiana and related topics that reach from the treatment of prisoners across the French Empire to examples of queer sexuality during incarceration. In short, given that there is only a limited number of prisoners’ own accounts from their time in French Guiana (some of which have further been debunked as hoaxes), Seaton’s autobiography has become a standard historical source among scholars—and he, by extension, a model prisoner of sorts.

I have advised the student to make the necessary edits to turn this article into a proper encyclopedic essay, and to restructure it around the significance of his autobiography, which can be properly verified with secondary sources. We would appreciate it if she received the opportunity to make these edits in the draftspace. Outcasts&Outlaws (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as nominator, I have no problem with this being moved back to Draft. I would have done so myself had there not already been a Draft in existnce preventing the new version being draftified. It will therefore need an Admin to do the draftification. However, I or any other editor, will still have be convinced by the sourcing that this person is indeed notable and not simply a self publicist, before accepting it in Mainspace. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as the only !voter, I am also happy with draftification.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the author of this article. I am continuously working on the article, so it meets the notability requirements. There are no longer any direct quotes from Seaton's autobiography and any wording that may sound like an essay has been removed. Here is a list of secondary sources that speak directly of Seaton and are sourced throughout the article: Negros with Slaves by Jet Magazine, Words of the Week by Jet Magazine, Space in the Tropics by Peter Redfield (University of California Press), and Empire of the Underworld (Harvard University Press). Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been working on improving the article, there are now over 10 new sources that are all secondary sources and relate to George John Seaton. I have implemented many changes including formatting, word choice, and the removal of any primary source quotes. Please review this article once again. If you have more improvements you would like me to make, please visit my talk page. I will be happy to continue to make changes. After reviewing the article, if it meets notability requirements then I would love for this article to no longer be flagged for deletion. I am doing my best to follow Wikipedia's guidelines while also sharing a story of a man who should be remembered. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change !vote to Keep - the changes described above tip the scales (just) in my opinion. I would still like to see the article's tone cleaned up to fix unsupported phrases like "notoriously one of the worst penal colonies of its time", "if imprisonment didn't kill a prisoner, then disease would", etc. and to spend less space discussing Papillon in two different sections. But I think this can be done in place rather that draftifying. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From a brief look at this article and its references, perhaps it could be retitled Isle of the Damned and be restructured to be about the book/s Isles and Scars - their reviews and reception, use by University of Michigan, comparisons, censorship, etc? It would of course include a potted bio of Seaton. Is there enough for WP:NBOOK? JennyOz (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I will speak with my professor about the suggestion and consider your idea. Best wishes, Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has basically been rewritten over the past two weeks and we have an unbolded "Keep" from the article creator. I'd like to hear from others, especially the nominator, whether these changes made to the article affect your point of view of what should happen with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the nominator, I still remain uncertain about notability. As indicated above, I would be content with draftification to allow for improvement. I don't have access to any of the sources added during the recent major revision, but from their context it appears that the content of the book has been used in historical analysis both about the prison and its treatment of prisoners and other topics. Had this article been about the book, this may well have been sufficiet to demonstrate notability, but since , in this case, notability dependends on demonstrating multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject, I cannot be sure that that has been achieved, especially as most of the claims to notability are bundled into a single short paragraph at the end. Those with access to the quoted sources may possibly disagree, in which case I would be content to defer to their better understanding. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your uncertainty about the article's notability but the changes you first requested when you flagged my article for deletion have since been implemented. As for the accessibility of sources, nearly all of these sources come from publications made by recognized universities or from google books, etc. You should not have trouble accessing these sources if you wish to learn more. The only sources you may have trouble retrieving are the sources pulled from my university's archives. However, being that we are a research university, it is possible to access these upon reaching out to the university.

We did in fact leave out any claim that Seaton's book is credible. This is because the book is not being used as a source in the article but is instead just being referenced. My professor and I felt that it was more scholarly to explain how the book has been used in case studies rather than trying to persuade readers that the book is credible.

From your comment, it seems that your biggest issue with the article is the uncertainty that the sources are referencing Seaton himself. Most of these sources do speak directly of Seaton and were published after devil's island was closed in 1953. Seaton gained popularity for surviving the island which led to news coverage of him. These articles are all sourced in the article and as mentioned above they are public access if you wish to find them.

As the nominator, please give specific examples of what you would like changed in order to ensure notability and I will do so. I want to once again emphasize that nearly all of these sources can be accessed by the public and are available online. This can reassure you that subject matter is being reported on directly and not the context surrounding him. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a leaning-towards-a-Delete-!vote contributor: What's with the numerous assignments in academic institutions for students to "create a Wikipedia article"? Since when Wikipedia's criteria for article creation are the same as the criteria for academic papers? Such a practice endangers the objectivity of contributors evaluating the text as worthy of being in the encyclopaedia. I, for one, would perhaps hesitate to !vote for Deletion if that means the student's grading suffers! And we are essentially asked to do a supervising professor's job, when we assess a student's work.

P.S. As it happens, I find the subject lacking in independent notability on the basis of reliable sources. But the issue of academic papers flooding Wikipedia is more important. We should bear in mind this, for instance. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the creator of this article. As mentioned, I am a university student, and by no means an expert in writing encyclopedias. However, our class carefully trained with a Wikipedia representative from the Wikipedia Education Foundation (a group focused on building articles made by students). As well as help from our professor, who has a PhD in the topic, helped curate and edit our articles to meet Wikipedia standards. Since there has been issues with my particular article being granted publishing rights, she has stepped in to help me tremendously hoping to make this article go live.

Overall, our class is simply trying to share the stories of people who have been othered in history. A few of my sources are pulled from the University Library and Library Archives at Washington University in St. Louis. However, the rest of the sources are all available online and should be accessible to the public. I am unsure why accessing the sources has been an issue. Many of these sources have public access from esteemed Universities and others are published on google books, etc.

The original nomination for deletion was made due to the use of a primary source. This information has since been removed. My professor and I have added multiple new sources that are accessible through online databases and take the place of the primary source. As mentioned by the nominator (User:Velella), there is less emphasis on the book's notability. This was done on purpose, as we felt it was more scholarly to give facts about how the autobiography by Seaton has been used as case studies for prisons and prisoner homosexuality versus trying to make a biased claim that the book is credible. We also thought that including the credibility of the book was irrelevant to the article because there is no source usage of the book in the article any longer.

I would love more feedback for what changes you think this article may need. My class ends very quickly so I am hoping to have an article that is able to go live. Thanks. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was notable even before the new sources were added. Desertarun (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this page, thank you for your vote to keep! Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think notability is established by improvements, and I don't see how the purely autobiographical works could themselves be notable if their subject is not. BD2412 T 03:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this page, thank you for your vote to keep! Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Recent sentiment has been pointing towards keeping this article, but with some questions still being discussed regarding notability/sourcing etc. An extra 7 days can't hurt to shore up consensus either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mission sui iuris of Lunda[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can verify that this administrative unit existed according to official church sources, but that's it. Possibly it could be merged somewhere but I don't see how it is even vaguely notable considering the utter lack of secondary interest. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Angola. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apostolic Prefecture of Lower Congo where it is already mentioned. Nothing else to b3 said about it apparently. Mccapra (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zexi Li[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty clear WP:BLP1E as this person is only notable for post-event legalities regarding the Canada convoy protest. All sources in the article and found in a WP:BEFORE check are in regards to the protest. Subject has otherwise demonstrated a consistent pattern of low-profile activity, while the article has been repeatedly vandalized in attack-page style. Pinging @Bueller 007: who initially raised BLP1E concerns. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, Law, and Canada. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Lead plaintiff" in a class-action suit is practically random. Of course, lawyers will name as a lead plaintiff someone with a legally sympathetic case, but that is not a source of notability, and neither is anything else indicated in the article. BD2412 T 03:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worth a mention on the Freedom Convoy class action lawsuit page. But shouldn't have a dedicated article. Clearly BLP1E (or TOOSOON if you want to call it that). Bueller 007 (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham, Inc.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. Found only one independent source with in-depth coverage: https://archives.lib.duke.edu/catalog/gothaminc. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and United States of America. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King & Maxwell[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was trying to PROD this but they reverted it two times, Since this show is extremely non-notable, i want to delete the Wikipedia page of this show. Agusmagni (talk | contributions) 22:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, and United States of America. Agusmagni Agusmagni Agusmagni 22:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is the fourth time in a row the nominator has sent clearly notable TV series with plenty of significant coverage to AfD. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, completely frivolous nomination. The fact that the nominator tried to prod it twice shows unfamiliarity with how things are done here, so grab the opportunity to learn more! Geschichte (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no opinion on this TV series and trust the regular commentators to evaluate it more knowledgeably than I would. But I wanted to note that, when I reverted the second prod on procedural grounds, my edit summary explicitly told the nominator that, if they were to take it to an AfD, they should provide "a proper justification of what you tried to do to determine its notability" rather than a WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE rationale. They have obviously not done what I suggested. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rosenfeldt[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hi; this is my first time both using Twinkle and participating in the AfD process, so try not to flame me too hard if I make a mistake here. This article has somewhat poor sourcing and I've done a check for his name to try and find anything on him but I've come up short. If anyone can find better sources for this, that would be great, but I'm unable to on my end. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and South Africa. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark, Switzerland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing in the article suggests notability per WP:MUSICBIO and I'm unable to find any significant coverage online. InDimensional (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Dennis Rodman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another WP:NOTSTATS violation featuring indiscriminate trivia. Let'srun (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, there's recent NBA-related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwight Howard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul.—Bagumba (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Kevin Garnett[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:NOTSTATS violation, which has also been tagged for verification since 2011. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, there's recent NBA-related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwight Howard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul.—Bagumba (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, don't need such lists especially said achievements can be placed in the player's own main page in an accolades, or legacy area. Will also copy paste this to the other aforementioned lists. Noorullah (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And for reference, there's recent golf player's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Jack Nicklaus. Less related but still relevant to the discussion. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOBIG, cited in Nicklaus' case, doesn't apply to Garnett's page.—Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. But someone will possibly make the assertion that every single career achievement page (across all sports) should be deleted (already happened in previous AfD discussions). Before they go there, they should consider Nicklaus' AfD result. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Career achievements of sportspeople shows that 18 racing drivers have their own career achievements page. Is WP:TOOBIG the reason why? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files[edit]

File:Police Quest 1 cover.png[edit]

A freely licensed image of the cover is now available as File:SierraOnLine-Box-PoliceQuest1.jpg on Commons. The only issue with the free image is the system requirements label partially obscures the Sierra logo. However, this should not be a deal breaker. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Almost all posters from Sierra On-Line are Creative Commons-licensed. More generally, these posters also have permit from the holder, under many VRTS tickets. Kys5g^talk! 02:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Showcase 006.jpg[edit]

This is unneeded non-free media: a perfectly fine file is in the infobox that serves the same purpose of identifying the early Challengers lineup. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Ghais Guevara[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Ghais Guevara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: One additional article besides the main article. No need for an eponymous category, too. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American men centenarians[edit]

Propose splitting Category:American men centenarians to Category:American centenarians and Category:Men centenarians

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge with parent categories for now. This is the only cross between nationality and gender for centenarians. I don't know how necessary it is but there is no such other category like it at the moment. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nationalists of African nations[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Nationalists of African nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Nationalists of Asian nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Nationalists of European nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Nationalists of Middle Eastern nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Nationalists of North American nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Nationalists of Oceanian nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Nationalists of South American nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:POVFORKs of Category:Nationalists by nationality. The catnames assert the existence of said "nations", which is a controversial subject as a whole, and controversial in every single example ever asserted due to competing claims of various nationalists. All contents are found in the Category:Nationalists by nationality tree already anyway. NLeeuw (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nationalism in the Arab world[edit]

Propose upmerging Category:Nationalism in the Arab world to Category:Nationalist movements in the Middle East

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. Almost completely the same contents, except framing the Middle East in terms of the largest ethnolinguistic group, the Arabs. NLeeuw (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Donor conceived people[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Donor conceived people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. Although the cat is interesting, this category isn't a defining feature for anyone but the very first cases, which isn't the case for most of the folks ib here Mason (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British squatter leaders[edit]

Propose merging Category:British squatter leaders to Category:Squatter leaders and Category:British housing rights activists
Propose merging Category:Pakistani squatter leaders to Category:Squatter leaders and Category:Squatting in Pakistan
Propose merging Category:Indian squatter leaders to Category:Squatter leaders and Category:Indian housing rights activists
Propose merging Category:Squatter leaders in New York City to Category:Squatter leaders and Category:Housing rights activists in New York City

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. each of these categories only has 1 person in it, which isn't helpful for navigation, especially considering how small the parent category is Mason (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murdered artists[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Murdered artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation and specific cause of death. I've ensured that each member of the category is in an artists category and a murder victim category. Mason (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from food poisoning[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Deaths from food poisoning to Category:Deaths by food poisoning

Nominator's rationale: Conflict in naming conventions between Category:Deaths from digestive disease and Category:Deaths from infectious disease; and Category:Deaths by poisoning. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iraqi Turkish poets[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Iraqi Turkish poets to Category:Turkish-language Iraqi poets
Propose splitting Category:Iraqi Kurdish poets to Category:Kurdish-language Iraqi poets and Category:Kurdish poets

Nominator's rationale: Language and ethnicity are different. The Kurdish category needs to be split. Mason (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Kurdistan is a thing though. An autonomous semi-independent region with its own citizenship, if not nationality. I think what you are proposing is a change of scope. Lots of inhabitants of Iraqi Kurdistan do not speak or write Kurdish. NLeeuw (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ossetian male writers[edit]

Propose merging Category:Ossetian male writers to Category:Ossetian writers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Non-defining intersection between ethnicity, occupation, and gender. Mason (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; we already have similar categories of ethnciity/occuptation/gender, such as Category:African-American male writers, Category:Yoruba women writers, and Category:Basque women writers. Categorizing writers by gender and nationality is quite common as well; see Category:Male writers by nationality. ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sámi textbook writers[edit]

Propose merging Category:Sámi textbook writers to Category:Sámi non-fiction writers and Category:Textbook writers

Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining intersection under WP:EGRS. The intersection of textbook writers and sami ethnicity isn't defining. (FYI: the existence of non-sami versions of the category is not sufficient.) Mason (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, it is defining in a Sámi context and even on the enwp, even if it is not in your opinion. The category exists to differentiate Sámi non-fiction writers who are textbook writers from those Sámi non-fiction writers who are not textbook writers. Or seen from the other direction: Sámi non-fiction writers can write multiple different types of books, not just textbooks. - Yupik (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it defining under EGRS? I looked but did not find evidence that this was an established intersection in academic sources. Even if you were to argue that the category is helpful for diffusion, you still need to make the case that this is a defining category. Mason (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yupik Please review EGRS, saying something is defining in a sami context isn't particularly convincing, unless you can point to evidence. Mason (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poisoned Romans[edit]

Propose merging Category:Poisoned Romans to Category:Ancient Roman murder victims and Category:Victims of intentional poisonings

Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge as Non-defining intersection between nationality and method of death. Category:Victims of intentional poisonings isn't diffused by nationality. If not merged, it should be renamed Poisoned ancient Romans. Mason (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Category:Victims of intentional poisonings isn't diffused by nationality." Why the heck not? Murder victim categories are typically subdivided by nationality. Dimadick (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are you going to diffuse it by nationality? I did't consider the category populated enough to need diffusion. Mason (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural depictions of Zanzibari people[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Cultural depictions of Zanzibari people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer. There's only one category in here, Category:Cultural depictions of Freddie Mercury‎, which probably... isn't a defining feature of FM. Mason (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:C+VG Hit award winners[edit]

Propose deleting Category:C+VG Hit award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A category for recipients of an awarded by a video game magazine. There are hundreds of magazines awarding their own awards. Not defining. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CVG is the oldest and longest running magazine in the world. Very well respected, and being a multi format magazine, it offers a unique perspective and way of comparing games across generations. The award was used as a selling point in videogames advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.155.34 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Football League first overall draft picks[edit]

Propose renaming Category:National Football League first overall draft picks to Category:First overall NFL draft picks

Nominator's rationale: Matches the recently renamed article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pro-Khalistan militant outfits[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Pro-Khalistan militant outfits to ~~Category:Pro-Khalistan organizations~~ Category:Pro-Khalistan rebel groups

Nominator's rationale: rename, "militant outfits" is a phrase that I have never seen before in category names. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a confusing tree. I'm not voting anything yet, I think we need to explore the options first. The main article appears to be Groups of Khalistan movement, which is also a grammatically incorrect title. I think the parent categories provide the best clues: these are Sikh rebel or terrorist groups which seek to establish an independent Khalistan or Sikh state in Punjab through armed violence. I think "organisations" is too generic. How about "Khalistan rebel groups", "Khalistan militant groups" or "Khalistan terrorist organisations"? The articles seem to say almost every single one of them, except Sikhs for Justice, has been designated a terrorist organisation by the government of India, and sometimes other states as well. But since "terrorist" can be POV, "rebel groups" is perhaps more neutral. NLeeuw (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Rebel groups" is certainly more to the point than the too general "organizations" and this is an established category as well. So definitely an improvement. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Any thoughts on "Khalistan" versus "pro-Khalistan"? This is the only cat in the tree to use "pro-"; it seems redundant, although not necessarily wrong. NLeeuw (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion about that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean people of Arab descent[edit]

Propose merging Category:Haitian people of Arab descent‎ (1 C, 1 P) Category:Haitian people of Asian descent‎
Propose merging Category:Haitian people of Egyptian descent‎ (1 C, 1 P) to Category:Haitian people of African descent‎
Propose merging Category:Egyptian emigrants to Haiti‎ (1 P) to Category:Haitian people of African descent‎, Category:Immigrants to Haiti and Category:Egyptian emigrants
Propose merging Category:Jamaican people of Arab descent‎ (2 P) to Category:Jamaican people of Asian descent‎
Propose merging Category:Cuban people of Arab descent (1 C, 1 P) to Category:Cuban people of Asian descent

Nominator's rationale: merge, very few articles and for the biographies it is not clear whether the subjects are really of ethnic Arab descent. They could be Druze, Copts, Assyrians, the articles just do not tell about it. A dual merge is not always needed, the biographies are already in Category:People of Syrian descent etc. and the topic articles are already in Category:Arab diaspora in the Caribbean. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The target category is inappropriate. There is a large Arab population in North Africa. Dimadick (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:10th-century Chinese adoptees[edit]

Propose merging Category:10th-century Chinese adoptees to Category:Chinese adopteesand Category:10th-century Chinese people
Propose merging Category:9th-century Chinese adoptees to Category:Chinese adoptees and Category:9th-century Chinese people

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge: Non defining intersection between century and adoption status Mason (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Zionism by former country[edit]

Propose merging Category:Anti-Zionism by former country to Category:Anti-Zionism by country

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously closed as merge; relisted per request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 18:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With meanwhile two subcategories it is still a redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Mason (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Red Smith Award recipients[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Red Smith Award recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCAWARD. Information will not be lost; it has its own template and article with a list. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic bishops in Macau[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, per article List of bishops of Macau, Catholic bishops are primarily bishop of a diocese. This is follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_16#Category:16th-century_Roman_Catholic_bishops_in_Portuguese_Macau. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Although I'm on the fence about merging to Category:FOO-century Macau people, because not everyone is from Macau. Mason (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sámi educators[edit]

Propose merging Category:Sámi educators to Category:Sámi people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It mirrors the same well-formed categories for non-Sámi educators. I have added one more category to this and at least two more categories could easily be created to add to this one based on the structure of the category for non-Sámi educators. -Yupik (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slight lean oppose. I have mixed feelings because it's a pretty common parent category, making it helpful for navigation. (Moreover, I think that Sami educator is more defining than Sami schoolteacher). Regardless, Yupik's reason for keeping isn't a good reason to keep or create categories. Please review WP:EGRS before making more categories. Mason (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated Baloch journalists[edit]

Propose splitting Category:Assassinated Baloch journalists to Category:Baloch journalists and Category:Assassinated Pakistani journalists

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. There's no need to diffuse the intersection of ethnity, cause of death, nationality, and occupation. Mason (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom but only merge to Category:Assassinated Pakistani journalists. The articles are still in Category:Baloch journalists except one article that does not belong there anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Baloch people are not limited to Pakistan. They are spread over Iran and Afghanistan. Dimadick (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. I was basing the nom off of the parent categories. So manual merge to the correct Assassinated nationality? Mason (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abdi İpekçi[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Abdi İpekçi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:Shared name Mason (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, except for the eponymous article the category does not contain articles about Abdi İpekçi. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murdered Cumhuriyet columnists[edit]

Propose splitting Category:Murdered Cumhuriyet columnists to Category:Cumhuriyet people and Category:Murdered Turkish journalists

Nominator's rationale: 2x upmerge. I don't think we ought to diffuse murdered journalists by whether they worked for a specific journal. Mason (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per nom, but only to Category:Cumhuriyet people. All articles are already in Category:Assassinated Turkish journalists. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North African-Jewish diaspora[edit]

Propose renaming Category:North African-Jewish diaspora to Category:Maghrebi-Jewish diaspora
Propose renaming Category:People of North African-Jewish descent‎ to Category:People of Maghrebi-Jewish descent‎
Propose merging Category:North African-Jewish culture in Israel‎ to Category:Maghrebi Jewish culture in Israel

Nominator's rationale: North African Jews is a redirect to Maghrebi Jews. Egyptian Jews are already in the tree of Middle Eastern Jews. Aldij (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Maghrebi Jews appears to exclude North African Sefardi Jews. The redirect should be converted to a disambiguation page. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Marco. I also agree with his suggestion on the redirect. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Asia[edit]

Propose emptying Category:North Asia and redirect to Category:Siberia
Propose deleting Category:North Asian countries
Propose deleting Category:Former countries in North Asia
Propose deleting Category:Former monarchies of North Asia
Propose deleting Category:Archaeology of Northern Asia‎
Propose deleting Category:Archaeological cultures of Northern Asia
Propose deleting Category:North Asian culture
Propose deleting Category:Economy of North Asia
Propose deleting Category:History of North Asia
Propose merging Category:Exploration of North Asia with Category:Explorers of North Asia to Category:Exploration of Siberia
Propose deleting Category:Jews and Judaism in North Asia

Nominator's rationale: delete/redirect, the content in these categories is broader than North Asia which is not very helpful, e.g. about Russia as a whole, or the Soviet Union as a whole. Even the Japanese Empire is among its former countries. The only content that really belongs is about Siberia, which already has its own categories, except for Category:Exploration of Siberia. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. If you hadn't nominated them, I would have done it sooner or later. NLeeuw (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish anti-Zionism in the Arab world[edit]

Propose merging Category:Jewish anti-Zionism in the Arab world to Category:Jewish anti-Zionism in the Middle East

Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories have a largely overlapping scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Aldij (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North African people of Jewish descent[edit]

Propose merging Category:North African people of Jewish descent to Category:African people of Jewish descent

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Aldij (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antisemitism by region[edit]

Propose merging Category:Antisemitism by region to Category:Antisemitism

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mason (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkish telenovelas[edit]

Propose merging Category:Turkish telenovelas to Category:Turkish television soap operas

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Telenovelas are basically the same as soap operas. The only difference between the two is length of series. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge), there isn't any particular telenovela in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Turkish telenovelas is an empty category. Could've been tagged CSD C1. Nothing present to Merge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A little earlier there was a topic article in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Then I guess the category was emptied after this nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sámi schoolteachers[edit]

Propose merging Category:Sámi schoolteachers to Category:Sámi educators

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. there's only one person in this category which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few more. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Marcocapelle. - Yupik (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The category now has more than one person in it. - Yupik (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Grand Prize SNP[edit]

Grand Prize SNP → ISU Junior Grand Prix in Slovakia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This competition has zero to do with the redirect target. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freeze, everybody clap your hands![edit]

Freeze, everybody clap your hands! → Cha Cha Slide (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Freeze! Everybody Clap your Hands! → Cha Cha Slide (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The addition of "Freeze" means that it can't be confused with Live at Tokyo Dome, but despite that, without a mention of this lyric, we don't have anything for readers that search the specific lyric of "everybody clap your hands" instead of the song itself. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an ~~{{R without mention}}~~. This line is basically the only one in the entire song, and I don't see any other likely target. FWIW, I didn't know the title of the song for several years but knew this line. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
basically the only one in the entire song Wa-huh?? The Cha Cha Slide is basically nothing BUT lyrics, associated dance moves, a backing beat, and after the line Cha-Cha now, y'all, a short funky sting. Have you been listening to the same song I have??
The main issue is that the song isn't referred to as the "Cha-Cha Slide" in the lyrics-- it's referred to as the Casper Slide Part 2.
...Wait, why ~~isn't~~wasn't THAT a redirect...? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my preferred tag to {{R from lyric}} as suggested by Ivanvector based on the discussion below. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In addition, tagging a redirect with {{R without mention}} places the redirect in a maintenance category, Category:Redirects to an article without mention, that is cleared by adding a mention to the target article, deleting the redirects via WP:CSD, or nominating the redirects for WP:RFD ... meaning tagging the redirect as so then "keeping" the redirect is akin to kicking the can down the road, which is unhelpful since we are literally having the discussion about the redirect right now. Steel1943 (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, maybe we should edit R Without Mention to more clearly state "hey, this is a maintenance category akin to {{template:Citation needed}}, it's not meant to be kept on a redirect that intentionally doesn't have a mention on the target, don't tag it as this and then keep". Seems like I see quite a bit of people erroneously using R Without Mention's existence as an rcat as proof that Rs without mention are Okay in certain circumstances, akin to {{template:R from non-neutral name}}. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe the maintenance category should be seperated from the tag, because there are plenty of situations where we don't need or want a mention at the target, but the redirect is still helpful to have. Incidentally, I agree with Presidentman above that this should be one such. Imagine if I get knocked down didn't redirect to Tubthumping... how would people find it? (yes I know Tubthumping does reference the line, but even if it didn't I'd hope this redirect would exist!) Keep. Fieari (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with that is that there would be nothing left to populate said maintenance category. ...Maybe there should be two separate rcats? {{R without mention}} and {{R intentionally without mention}}, perhaps. (also rq: editing my first comment here to link to a relevant essay) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag {{R from lyric}}, which doesn't put the page into a maintenance category. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"R from lyric" is a template for "lyric redirects that point to a source that describes the lyric". Redirects should not exist for every lyric that people can think of. The long-established metric applicable for all of the actually-valid "R from lyrics" is based on whether or not there is a mention in the article (and thusly a reliable source that can be attributed to and corroborate the lyric mention, in practice) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirects that are not mentioned are not useful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clean vocals[edit]

Clean vocals → Singing (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Clean Vocals → Singing (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Clean vocal → Singing (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Clean vocalist → Singing (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 7 § Clean vocals – retarget

No mentions of "clean" at the target page. At the target page, the act of singing is never implied to be "clean", or even consist of "clean vocals". The primary justification for this redirect existing is that unclean vocals is a redirect to death growl. Yet, its antonym has no mention at the general page for "singing". If clean and unclean vocals are antonyms, and both are redirects, this seems to imply that the concepts of "singing" and "death growl" are also "antonyms" in regard to vocal quality? Likely true, but never addressed (nor does it need to be imo). For someone specifically looking for information on the topic of "clean vocals", it seems to be preferable for these readers to end up at a topic that is directly pertinent to vocal quality. If people wanted to end up at Singing instead, they'd type singing, a concept everyone would have already been familiar with. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, an RfD for Clean vocals closed as retarget in 2015, but was pointed back to Singing after its conclusion three different times by two users, citing different material at the page for Screaming (music) (the resulting retarget). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the nominator that someone searching for "Clean vocals" or "Clean vocalist" is looking for more than the page on singing, and wants to know about the quality of the voice instead. I've been searching around, and the best page for information on vocal quality appears to be at Vocal pedagogy, but that page is super technical and seems a bit more deeply theoretical and broad topic than someone looking for information on voice quality. I'm not sure we actually have the perfect article to target for these... in which case maybe WP:REDLINKing it (that is, deletion) would be appropriate to encourage article creation. But I'm on the fence, so no formal !vote from me as of now. Fieari (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clean vocals is a highly likely search term Geschichte (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This thing is really begging for a WP:RA, isn't it? Bwrs (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget ... somewhere. The term "clean vocals" is only relevant in the context of certain genres of music which use vocal techniques commonly called "unclean". Singing doesn't describe any of those techniques and is the wrong target; the word "clean" doesn't appear in the article at all. The problem is that this makes sense as an {{R from antonym}} to both screaming (music) and death growl, which are both different techniques, and both of those articles describe "clean vocals" in context. There's a former article in the redirect's history ([23]) which was prodded many years ago for having no sources at all. We shouldn't restore that, but maybe a short set index/disambiguation, to give the term context? Or else expanding the very bare section on those two vocal styles at Extended vocal technique#Distortion and then targeting there? As an antonym to unclean vocals and harsh vocals, which probably should get the same treatment as this redirect. I can find a few sources to draft something but I'm about to be in meetings for the foreseeable future (ugh). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that R From Antonym is not a "categorize this kept redirect" rcat, but instead, a "populate this maintenance category" redirect. I don't know WHY, but it IS. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector, any chance you've got the time to throw a quick stub/section together now? -- asilvering (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han (state)[edit]

Han (state) → Han (Warring States) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to Han#Former states as ambiguous. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in the Australian Greens[edit]

Antisemitism in the Australian Greens → Australian Greens#Accusations of antisemitism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in main article Australian Greens. Not a plausible search term, appears to be an attempt at a POV-fork. AusLondonder (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The section this pointed to was removed just two days ago, and there are ongoing discussions at the talk page. It may be better to wait until consensus is reached on whether or not to include this content before having an RfD. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi from Rio[edit]

Mimi from Rio → Lists of Netflix original films (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target article. At this point, the only article that mentions this phrase is Kaz Firpo, but that may not be appropriate since apparently, the subject of this redirect also has a connection to the subject Ridley Scott; in other words, delete per WP:REDYES. Steel1943 (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:UKR[edit]

Wikipedia:UKR → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Romanization of Ukrainian (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I feel as though it could also point to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine (or even Wikipedia:WikiProject UK railways]] given that the three letter code for that land is UKR. In fact, I only just added a hatnote to the current target page. Idk if this should point to another or to be made a disambig page. JuniperChill (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella Security Service[edit]

Umbrella Security Service → List of Resident Evil characters#Umbrella Corporation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It wasn't called like this, but Umbrella Corp only. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella Trashsweepers[edit]

Umbrella Trashsweepers → List of Resident Evil characters#Umbrella Corporation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Non-existing at the article now, since it is not a "character". 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella corp.[edit]

Umbrella corp. → List of Resident Evil characters#Umbrella Corporation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Non-existing at the article now, since it is not a "character". 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. per other page discussion and content has been readded. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella, Inc.[edit]

Umbrella, Inc. → List of Resident Evil characters#Umbrella Corporation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Non-existing at the article now, since it is not a "character". 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Don't agree with the justification provided (content was removed, by the nominator, a few minutes before this nomination was made, without any time for the BRD cycle to take place), but this redirect is not used. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas Umbrella Facility[edit]

Las Vegas Umbrella Facility → Resident Evil (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Non-existing thing, ctrl + f shows no mention about this. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella Corporation[edit]

Umbrella Corporation → List of Resident Evil characters#Umbrella Corporation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Articles doesn't exist now in List of Resident Evil characters, since it is not a "character". 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Content was removed, by the nominator, a few minutes before this nomination was made. I'm all for being bold, but it feels like removing content under a section clearly labelled "main organizations and characters" should be allowed to settle before nominating established and used redirects for deletion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I personally think the content should be readded since this organization is so integral to the world of the game. In fact, it used to be a separate article before being merged into the present target (see the relevant AfD). Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above commenters. Yeoutie (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I would like to withdraw now. Restored it. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Positive cone[edit]

Positive cone → Ordered vector space (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Also refers to Ordered_field#Positive_cone. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 02:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that it be made into a disambiguation page. Mgkrupa 05:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate There is also positive cone of a partially ordered group. I drafted a dab page. Paradoctor (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate Evidently a general name for similar but unrelated concepts. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Detective constable[edit]

Detective constable → Constable#Detective constable (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention at the target. Lots of uses of the term, but nothing to link to. Paradoctor (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Detective#Organization, where it is mentioned. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and Modules[edit]

Template:MusicBrainz wiki[edit]

Template:MusicBrainz wiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two uses. See m:Talk:Interwiki map#MusicBrainz. Suggest replacing with a direct link, substing, and deleting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Missing rationale[edit]

Template:Missing rationale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Di-no non-free use rationale-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Missing rationale with Template:Di-no non-free use rationale-notice.
This template (Missing rationale) needs to be merged because it seems to have an similar wording. Missing rationale was often used in the 2000s before Di-no non-free use rationale-notice, and most people do not use "Missing rationale" anymore. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Chris Chan: A Comprehensive History[edit]

Noticed this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Chris_Chan:_A_Comprehensive_History. WP:GNG seems far, far away, and apparently the subject has a bit of a WP-history:[24] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was quick. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Talk:Blackpink/GA1[edit]

Delete to make space for a proper GA review. It seems like one of the editors has blanked the page so it's most likely that they also want it to be deleted. Okmrman (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per rationale. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Sydney Morning Herald 05:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
user:750h+, your signature is not ok. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I’m sorry. I’ve changed it to my normal name, hope that’s better. 750 h+ 15:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is talk page history and should never be deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be relatively trivial to simply overwrite the existing content with a new review without needing to delete anything, and even if that is disfavored for some reason, there is no shortage of space and therefore no need to "make room" for anything as new pages may always be created. Looking at the prefix index these are sometimes deleted and sometimes retained though judging from a cursory review many of the deletions were actually WP:G7s done after the MFD was started. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:49B:2883:34FC:225B (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep the first review archived, and write a new review at Talk:Blackpink/GA2. The first one was closed with a reason that is not valid, yes, but it's not vandalism either. Cambalachero (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: typical practice at GAN is that if a reviewer opens a page without beginning the actual review and then withdraws but can't be bothered to add a G7 (or simply disappears), we will delete the page at G6 because nothing has actually happened. In this case, there was an actual review failure by a second reviewer (if an out-of-process one). BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as 750h+ closed the review, and thus it should not be deleted. It really should have been G6'd before, but whatever. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No queerphobes[edit]

It's a political screed coatracking as an essay. People are free to believe what they will as long as they do not act in a manner that is disruptive. The "No (fill in whichever group or set of beliefs you want banned)" essays are getting out of hand. Trying to elevate social conservatives and gender critical beliefs to the same level as Nazism is an abuse of WP:ESSAYS and also of WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NOTFORUM. It smacks of an attempt to turn Wikipedia into an ideological echo chamber. We need to draw a line somewhere and this seems like a good place to start. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive - We don't need an essay for every specific form of hate speech. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive All queer people should feel welcome to edit here. My own brother is queer, but we are both on the same page on this topic. However, this does not mean we have to indef everyone who does not agree with all of the LGBT community's demands. I know I am not. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you got indef everyone who does not agree with all of the LGBT community's demands. The essay does not imply such an extreme statement, let alone enforce it. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We already have Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If we start adding "no personal attacks on X group" specific pages, we would be here all day. Cambalachero (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the main author's user space, then redirect the WP title (and the various other WP shortcuts that have already been put in place) to WP:Hate is disruptive. I don't think this would be a problem as a user space essay, reflecting one editor's (or one group of editors') views on the subject. I do not think that it has been through the level of community scrutiny and consensus building that would warrant a WP: namespace title. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit what level of community scrutiny/consensus building is necessary? This is my first wikipedia essay so I'm not sure where I'm supposed to head to notify people of it and gain broader consensus lol. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what (if anything) is implied by the 'lol' at the end of your question. From WP:ESSAY: Essays may be moved into userspace as user essays (see below), or even deleted, if they are found to be problematic. This discussion will establish whether or not the essay is problematic; I am proposing the first option as an alternative to the second, if that is indeed found to be the case. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zillenial texting habits sorry - in this case the lol was meant to convey conviviality and gently acknowledge my own confusion. Gotcha, I'd thought I missed something and was supposed to take it to an essay wikiproject or something - I now get from your comment and the essay essay that it's presumed non-problematic until an MFD shows otherwise. Personally, the reason I didn't want to have it as a userspace essay is because I want it to truly be a community essay and gain that level of consensus - I want it to be open for everyone to edit rather than presumed mine. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ad Orientem Sweet6970 (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ad Orientem Okmrman (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a political screed is an insult without justification. If you don't like the essay, you can suggest improvements, be bold and make them, or write why you don't endorse it.

We currently have 4 other essays in this vein. WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE is about bigotry in general, yet we also have WP:No racists (which I don't see anybody saying should redirect there), and then we have WP:NONAZIS and WP:No Confederates about specific kinds of racists (and I see nobody clamoring for a redirect there). 3 essays on racism, yet none on queerphobia... Interestingly, WP:NONAZIS was nominated for deletion in 2019 and 2023 for the same vague charges of advocacy and foruming.

Trying to elevate social conservatives and gender critical beliefs to the same level as Nazism where does it do this? NONAZIS was the first essay of this sort written, but we also have WP:No racists. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about whether all of these separate pages are worth retaining would probably be worth having. NONAZIS is by far the oldest, and I'd guess is also by far the most well-known and oft-cited. TonyBallioni moved WP:NORACISTS from another user's userspace into project space in 2021 for reasons that he's probably forgotten, but I'd be interested to hear whether he thinks it's still serving any purpose (I suspect it's not). I hadn't seen WP:No Confederates, but it came only slightly after WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE, which (sensibly, in my view) attempts to discuss the wider theme. It might be the case (I don't have a firm view on this) that all of these independent essays ought to be merged into HATEISDISRUPTIVE; certainly, I tend to feel that we do not need these 'WP:No...' essays to proliferate. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like HATEISDISRUPTIVE which is why I cite it in the essay, my only qualm with it is that it leans more philosophical than practical - essays like no queerphobes/confederates/racists/nazis mean the community has some centralized points where we lay out what's inappropriate, the relevant historical context, and related policies and procedures so we can have shared working definitions of what is meant by hate. Personally, I wrote the essay partly due to being sick of years of people consistently writing in discussions (or even wikivoice) that "gender ideology" is real, that trans kids are actually just mentally ill cis kids indoctrinated to think they're trans, or that all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists, or whatever else - mostly without repercussions as long as they stop short of actual slurs (and from my discussions with other queer editors over the years, I'm far from the only one who's sick of it). I think regardless of the merits of merging them all into hate is disruptive (to which I can certainly see benefits), I doubt it'd gain traction with the community. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have notified the LGBT noticeboard of this move discussion. Pinging those who've discussed/edited the essay: other significant contributors to the essay (@LokiTheLiar, @RoxySaunders, and @Raladic), those who have weighed in on the talk page (@Sundostund, @Queen of Hearts, and @Hob Gadling), and @NatGertler who weighed in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Wikipedia:No Queerphobes. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be coming very close to WP:CANVASSING. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not canvassing to notify people who would be affected by a decision. If this was on the talk page of WP:NOQUEERPHOBES, this would be an obviously appropriate notification. Loki (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, please do not insult my intelligence. This was calling in the cavalry. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only people I notified where those who discussed/edited the essay who didn't comment here. I'd like to note I pinged people who opposed the essay as well. Many I pinged had issues with the essay they noted or boldly fixed rather than go straight to MFD. This is not WP:CANVASSING by any stretch of the imagination. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that discussion has reopened, I can note that it looks like YFNS followed WP:APPNOTE in terms of who was contacted; the only variation from that was the use of pinging rather than posting on their user talk pages. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is "insulting your intelligence", we're pointing out policy. No comment on keeping yet, as I haven't read the article thoroughly enough for that. That said, and as others have mentioned at length here, there's plenty of precedent for keeping them around, and if you think they're getting out of hand, it's probably better to tackle them all at once rather than singling out the most recent one, the latter of which being almost guaranteed to end in a no consensus close at best. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. No real argument has been made for deletion of this essay. The standards for keeping an essay are extremely low: just that it doesn't contradict widespread wiki consensus. As long as that's not the case, any random editor's opinion can be a mainspace essay. Indeed, this is not even just one editor's opinion, as several editors have endorsed it on its talk page. This is a prime example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Loki (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn and request procedural close Naked canvassing has likely compromised the discussion irretrievably. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Orientem, I'd urge you to let the discussion run it's course. I don't see this as improper canvassing - these people were all already discussing the essay on its talk page, it's only fair for them to be notified of this discussion. Non-endorsers were pinged as well as endorsers. As for the Wikiproject, there was an active-ish discussion on the project talk page about it (which is how I first came to know of the essay), so again it's probably within the bounds of acceptable notification. Let's not make this an us and then situation, let's see if we can actually come to a consensus on whether pages like this server any useful purpose, or if they just serve to divide otherwise productive editors who ought to be working towards the same goal. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:No Queerphobia. The essay, like all things on Wikipedia, is subject to change, and I think there is space here to do the core of what it is to do... or at least as I see its best possible function: to give specific examples of how a queerphobic editor might be editing that goes against what is covered at WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE. While anti-queer belief is sadly not fringe at this point in time, and while we certainly can't be simply banning edits that support views that do no serve queer-supportive goals, but there are things that editors do that target queer editors and queer topics that have some unique methods and textures. Having a page that specifically points to things like discussing an editor specifically using pronouns that are not their preferred pronouns, or claiming that someone has a COI on LGBTQIA topics simply by identifying themselves with one of those letters, is of use. My support for a move is based on the idea that we should not (and, practically, cannot) say that people who are against gay equality or any such things are not allowed to edit here, just that they cannot be disruptively showing their hate. (Same argument would go for similar essays.) The essay-creating editor has been very open to input. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The essay outlines and espands on WP:Hate is disruptive with clearer examples of what kind of hate speech is directed towards the queer community and regularly articles involving LGBTQIA+ topics, which is why we have specific arbritation enforcements such as WP:GENSEX that became neccesary precicely because of the queerphobia that drives many vandals to wikipedia, which are often banned and even regularly requires WP:Revdel. It is also improper to say that informing relevant wikiprojects would be canvassing, as that is regular procedure in any deletion discussion and as was already pointed out above, both endorsers and non-endorsers of the essay were informed. It is also inappropriate to equate queerphobia to be a political opinion and use this as the argument for deletion of the essay. Since the OP also brought up that saying that queerphobia doesn't rise to the same level as WP:No Nazis - Nazis did in fact have queerphobic beliefs and various members of the queer community were perspecuted by them, as outlined in Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and Transgender people in Nazi Germany. But also, using it as an argument of why other essays are more valid, but this one isn't, is just saying that some marginalization is more important than others, which is a fallacy as per the Oppression Olympics. Hate speech, no matter in what form does not have a place on Wikipedia. While editors are free to have their beliefs. If such beliefs run afoul of Wikipedias policies and lead to WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, then having an essay outlining some of the relevant policies that apply to this sub-topic is valuable to the community. Per WP:POLICIES, Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. - they are not subject to the same scrutiny as mainspace articles and do not represent all editors views, but as has already been proven by multiple people having endorsed the essay, it clearly does represent the view and consensus of some editors on Wikipedia. One last point I'd like to make is that this essay captures some of the essence of the disruption that LGBTQIA+ topics and editors often experience, which is why we even have a mainspace article on LGBT and Wikipedia as this kind of disruptive editing has even brought large attention of reliable source media on multiple occasions. It is most certainly not just a coatrack, but very much a valuable essay on itself as the topic of LBTQ coverage and the harassment that users trying to improve its content do have to regularly experience as the article in the NY Times from 2019 has summarized quite well. Raladic (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we already have the tools necessary to deal with DE and PAs; this 'essay' is just an attempt to make a particular issue a more substantial one than it is. It is generally less than useful to equate all things we dislike to Nazism. It is simplistic and disingenuous to claim that because the Nazis took X-view of something that musty mean that others are also Nazis. Nazis also had ideas on many other things, obviously many of them repellent. Tamzin has written a far more effective, overarching treatment of the issue in—the much clearer and comprehensive—WP:Hate is disruptive. As noted, this is merely a WP:COATRACK and a diversion from the simple fact that if editors are abusive we deal with them every day; it is singularly obtuse to suggest that seasoned admins (and patrolling editors for that matter) somehow need have the relevant policies that apply explained to them. ——Serial Number 54129 19:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SN54129 BilledMammal (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just updated the lead and nutshell to not mention NONAZIS as much - I think those saying it equates queerphobes to Nazis are missing the point: that was the first essay against hate, WP:NORACISTS also cites it, NONAZIS itself says in the lead neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, white supremacists, white nationalists, identitarians, and others with somewhat-less-than-complimentary views on other races and ethnicities – hereafter referred to collectively as Nazis. This was explicitly addressing a gap NONAZIS doesn't fill because one can be disruptively queerphobic without being a Nazi: we have 3 essays on why racism and openly identifying with racists is bad, one on general reasons we don't tolerate bigotry, and this single essay on queerphobia. I think a deletion discussion about the solitary one on queerphobia instead of all of them is misguided at best as many editors' arguments include dislike of the type of essay as a whole. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in Wikipedia namespace: from reading the above discussion I'm not sure we have clarity on what an essay is. From Wikipedia:Essays: There are over 2,000 essays ... Essays can be written by anyone and can be long monologues or short theses, serious or humorous. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints ... Many essays ... are obscure, single-author pieces.
Wikipedia:Essays (itself an essay!) indicates that essays can be moved to userspace or deleted if problematic, typically because they contradict existing community norms. I do not believe this essay does so. It outlines some information that is uncontroversial (e.g. medical fact or Wikipedia behavioural policies) as well as some opinion by the author about how Wikipedia policies should be enforced and what queerphobia looks like in the context of Wikipedia. None of it violates a core policy such as WP:NPOV. Though I support its contents, I would object to it being upgraded to an explanatory supplement or guideline etc.
The highly referenced WP:NONAZIS is a contentious essay that some Wikipedians disagree with (for instance, those who believe somebody should only be blocked for actions, not beliefs). It lists views that are widely held e.g. supporting forcible sterilisation of disabled people (which is done on a large scale today) and describes them as beliefs that characterise modern-day Nazism. Nonetheless, it has enormous support and consensus at MfDs have found that its status as a Wikipedia-space essay is appropriate. This is because there has been widespread disruption to Wikipedia caused by neo-Nazis and Nazi-adjacent editors and it is an ongoing problem that requires a high level of knowledge and organisation among the community to combat. A similar analysis applies to "No queerphobes". — Bilorv (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/userfy/redirect/do whatever to get this out of projectspace: S# puts it perfectly. This is a coatrack and doesn't help. And for the record, I was "canvassed" to this because I put myself as a non-endorser. Queen of ♡ | speak 21:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in WP namespace, as it represents the opinions of multiple editors rather than one. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in Wikipedia namespace per what was said above, mainly by YFNS, Loki, Raladic and Bilorv. They, pretty much, summed up all the most important arguments regarding this essay and its importance, so I wouldn't want to simply repeat their words. I can only add that possible deletion/removal of this essay would be very undesirable and even dangerous, as it could be understood as a "licence" to discriminate LGBT people on the project, and that such behavior is acceptable. I want to make it completely clear: I am absoultely sure that the nominator didn't have such intention when they started this MfD discussion; I am just saying how all of this could be interpreted by some people, if the discussion result in deletion of this essay. In order to avoid such problematic conclusions by certain users, we should make it clear that, as a community, we stand behind this essay and its proclaimed values. The core message of the essay is clear: LGBT people must not be discriminated here, and that is more than enough for it to be kept and endorsed by more users in the future. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this page has about fifty "proclaimed values", and maybe five of them have anything to do with actual discrimination against LGBT editors, whereas the rest are just random progressive activist tweets being said in wikivoice. There is a very long list of "groups known for spreading misinformation about and legislatively targeting the LGBT community" -- what in the world does this have to do with editing Wikipedia? There is then the non sequitur claim that these groups "and affiliated groups" should be avoided as sources. Is the idea here that if you have good enough politics opinions, you can bypass WP:RS entirely and just write a polemic essay deciding which sources are bad? This is silly. jp×g 🗯️ 22:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

random progressive activist tweets being said in wikivoice - have examples? Is the idea here that if you have good enough politics opinions, you can bypass WP:RS entirely and just write a polemic essay deciding which sources are bad - The list, since deleted, concerned multiple groups people have tried to cite as sources which are known for misinformation. Off the top of my head, here's the last time somebody tried to cite one[25] (who cited the groups dozens of times on other wikis and is a pretty good example of who the essay is talking about). These are groups which reliable sources concur are known for misinformation about the LGBT community, which is not only confirmed by a quick read of their articles but by RSN itself.[26][27][28] Which of the deleted ones do you think actually counts as anything close to a WP:RS? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should point this out, as precisely that point of groups known for spreading misinformation.. was just a week ago the center of such a focus in light of the Cass Review, there was a discussion of some sources from the UK that contribute to it, directly linked to LGBT topic on the Talk:Cass Review#Don't use sources by The Telegraph and The Times, which has now led to an RFC prep to discuss the limiting of them as RS for transgender topics due to their regular coverage spreading of misinformation. This is not just a theoretical topic, but the lived reality of people trying to uphold Wikipedia's values and trying to improve LGBT content on Wikipedia and the uphill battle that it often represents. As you can see from there, editors are now collaborating to collect the evidence and will subsequently bring it for discussion, following the processes we have in place for such discussions.

The focus of the essay is not just on editors, but also the content of LGBT topics and how editors often have to fight an uphill battle against people trying to spread misinformation in such articles. Raladic (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The idea of having a specific WP:NONAZIS fork for sexuality is already dodgy, and of questionable utility (some people have already mentioned this). But this page, specifically, is a partisan political screed about how we need to purge editors who believe in "narratives" the author does not like. I've gone a hundred thousand edits under my real name without being asked about my sexual orientation, but sources close to JPxG say that all LGBT editors are not spoken for here. We should not have an essay asserting confidently that everyone who argued against its author in a MoS debate should be ejected summarily from the project. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a political thunderdome -- I am opposed to any outcome that involves any chance of people reading this and thinking that it represents official Wikipedia doctrine. jp×g 🗯️ 22:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I don't have any strong objection to this being in project space. We give people a fair amount of latitude on essays. But keep in mind that when it's in project space, people also have greater freedom to edit it, as I did in Special:Diff/1221268945 to remove what strikes me as inappropriate targeting of specific organizations. You might want to consider moving it to your userspace, where you'll have a greater ability to control the content and revert changes you don't agree with. RoySmith (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move Per Radalic, Brilov, and Nat Gertler above. This essay definitely needs some more flesh and has kinks to work out, but it is currently being worked on by a large number of editors, so I'm confident that this will happen, other than that, it is, in my opinion a fairly unremarkable extension to Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive, listing a bunch of common fringe claims about the subject and behaviours of the editors pushing them, none of which are particularly new to Wikipedia in general or AE in particular. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. In this case I say it should be kept and would be a good addition to the WP:HID page you mentioned. I have to fundamentally disagree with those such as jpxg, Queen of Hearts, and the original nominating statement. Historyday01 (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

Open Book Collective[edit]

This was admittedly a low-quorum discussion, but I don't think the arguments against redirection were any good at all. This article was created directly in mainspace by Flavoursofopen, a disclosed COI editor, against the WP:COIEDIT guideline (which I'm assuming they were unaware of). Of the two "keep" votes

Myotus blindly asserts that it appears notable enough without linking any sources
Flavoursofopen's argument for keeping the article is that the OBC is legally separate from the possible redirect target (true, but irrelevant, a redirect would be kept at redirects for discussion).

Mach61 22:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @BoraVoro: Mach61 22:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. WP:BADNAC clearly states: A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: [...] The outcome is a close call [...] or likely to be controversial. Almost any No-consensus closure is bound to be a BADNAC. Whether the proposed redirect is a suitable ATD is something the re-closing admin should determine. Owen× ☎ 22:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate per above.—Alalch E. 23:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Cook, John (21 October 2005). "Ex-startup Airbiquity experiences a rebirth". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

[2] Cook, John (22 January 2008). "Airbiquity rebounds with funding, deals". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

[1]

[2]

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creation Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and votings	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates